City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application Response to ...€¦ · The software that...

CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

X

Introduction

On the 15 March 2016 the City of Casey resolved to submit a Rate Cap Variation Application to the Essential Services Commission (ESC) for 2016/17. This was lodged on 21 March 2016, receipt of which

was acknowledged by the ESC on 22 March 2016. Two weeks following this on 4 April 2016 a request for further information was received from the ESC, some of which had been informed by a meeting

held between the City of Casey and the ESC on 24 March 2016.

Council officers have provided a response to the 45 items of further information of varying scope and difficulty to the best level of understanding and capacity to which it can be addressed in the timeframe

available.

Table of ESC Matters and City of Casey Response

Ref# ESC Comment/Request for Information City Of Casey Response

1.2 Magnitude

1 Please clarify the basis of 0.97 per cent and $1.604 million. We observed that the 2016-

17 disbursement for the Hunt Club under the budget baseline information is

$1.594 million and $1.857 million under the project nomination template (see table 1).

With the difference between the $1.604m (0.97% variation above the Rate Cap), and the $1.594m,

this will be related to rounding. For Casey, an 0.01% rate increase in 2016/17 is equivalent to

$0.016m, so the 0.97% requested is the increase required to maintain a positive Budget outcome

for Casey in 2016/17 to deliver the projects (and overall Capital Works Program) identified in

Council’s application.

The change from the $1.857m in the project nomination to the $1.594m in the final version of the

draft 2016/17 Budget, and as included in Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Submission, is a

result of the assessment, analysis and final balancing process that is undertaken by officers and

then Council as part of the development of Council’s 5 year Capital Works program, including the

Year 1 Annual Budget. Elements of this process are discussed in more detail below in the

City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application – Response to

Essential Services Commission Request for Information

13 April 2016

2 | P a g e

response to the ESC’s Request for Information (RFI) # 10.

2 The application is a one-off increase in 2016-17 and is permanently included in the

revenue base. What are the underlying assumptions on the associated operating and

maintenance costs and revenues for these two projects that are included in the

Council’s 2016-20 Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) and 2016-26 Long Term Financial

Plan (LTFP)?

For the Hunt Club project, future maintenance cost of $46k per annum have been allowed for in

Council’s draft 2016-20 Strategic Resource Plan, from Year 3 (2018/19), after completion of the

project in Year 2 (2017/18), consistent with the summarised information submitted for this project

during the development of the 2016/17 5 year Capital Works Program.

For the Autumn Place project, a net increase in future operating and maintenance costs of $117k

per annum, have been allowed for in Council’s draft 2016-20 Strategic Resource Plan, to

commence from Year 4 (2019/20), consistent with the summarised information submitted for this

project during the development of the 2016/17 5 year Capital Works Program.

1.3 Reasons

The application has stated that “the consequences of not applying for a higher cap

would be a detrimental impact on the ability of the Council to meet its responsibilities

under the Local Government Act 1989 to operate a sustainable council that delivers on

the needs of its communities”.1 Please outline the impact on the City of Casey’s

financials if it stays within the rate cap by providing us the following:

3 2016-26 LTFP financial statements (ie. just the aggregate financial results and

not the whole LTFP document) – without the 2 projects (including the

assumptions used) and

Casey sent a query to clarify this RFI to the ESC on 7 April, with the response from the ESC

received on 8 April.

Casey sought clarification on what rate rises would need to be assumed for future years, and

whether more summarised information for the SRP period could be provided, noting the complexity

and effort required to prepare these alternate scenarios for the LTFP period.

The ESC directed that 2.5% be used for the later year increases in this scenario, for the rest of the

SRP period, which is consistent with the rate cap (Scenario 1b), but inconsistent with Council’s

current draft 2016-20 SRP (Scenario 1a). The outputs of this modelling for the SRP period are

contained in Attachments 3a and 3b.

4 2016-26 LTFP financial statements (ie. just the aggregate financial results and

not the whole LTFP document) – with the 2 projects (including the assumptions

used).



Casey sought clarification on what rate rises would need to be assumed for future years, and

1 Page 18 of City of Casey’s application for a higher cap.

3 | P a g e

whether more summarised information for the SRP period could be provided, noting the complexity

and effort required to prepare these alternate scenarios for the LTFP period.

The ESC directed that 2.5% be used for the later year increases in this scenario, for the rest of the

SRP period, which is consistent with the rate cap (Scenario 2b), but inconsistent with Council’s

current draft 2016-20 SRP (Scenario 2a). The outputs of this modelling for the SRP period are

contained in Attachments 4a and 4b.

Casey does not support this scenario, as it would result in an unbalanced (and unfunded) budget

position across the SRP and beyond.

5 Also, wherever possible, please indicate the impacts on the services levels and

infrastructure program of staying within the rate cap during the SRP period.

As shown in the further scenarios that the ESC has requested be run by the City of Casey (full rate

cap scenario) across the SRP period, Council’s Capital Works Program will be reduced by all (or

nearly all) of the impact of the Rate Cap. The services that rely on this infrastructure for the

provision of services, activities and programs to the community will be negatively affected as a

result.

This would see lower levels of kindergarten enrolments, MCH contact hours, community room

availability, participation levels in organised sport and passive recreation opportunities. It would

also place greater demand on existing facilities. Access to new and improved roads, drains, paths,

upgraded and extended buildings will also be reduced as the impact of the Rate Cap compounds

over time.

6 Thank you for providing us attachment 6.1 (financial statements portion of the 2016-26

LTFP) which shows the underlying financials if the higher cap is approved. We would

like to request a copy of the rest of the 2016-26 LTFP or even the website link to the

latest version if it is publicly available.

The software that Casey utilises to develop its LTFP has been commercially procured. Casey’s

reading of the software agreement covering the use of this software would only allow the outputs of

this model to be provided (as contained in the Application), and not full access to the model.

Casey is happy to discuss any particular queries that the ESC assessment Team may have, and

provide an explanation or response about how certain items have been incorporated or considered

within the LTFP.

Apart from its inclusion in Casey’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application, the draft LTFP has not

otherwise been publicly available. It had been prepared and incorporated in the Application due to

the expected nature of the impacts of the CPI based rate cap on Casey whilst it is experiencing its

long term growth phase that is ostensibly driven by State Government planning policy.

The process to develop the LTFP included in the application was described on page 24 of the

Application. Casey is happy to discuss this further if this would be beneficial.

4 | P a g e

1.3 Reasons – Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility

The application states that “as assessed through the development of the Capital Works

Program, it has been identified as the provision of a new service which Council must

forego in order to prioritise other capital expenditure”. We also noted your conclusion on

the community engagement which says “Council has reflected on this and agrees that

one of the core functions of a council is to provide necessary services to the existing and

future communities of the City of Casey. In order to do this, Council has (like it has over

time) prioritised funding towards the necessary growth of its Capital Works Program”.

Please provide the business case for this project (as agreed during our 24 March

meeting) for us to understand better the need for the project’s implementation by 2016-

17 including:

7 More specific information about the population and demography of Cranbourne

East.

Please see response in Attachment 7a. Attachment 7b includes an internal reference document

that was prepared in 2014 alongside the Leisure Facilities Development Plan that outlines in detail

the sport facilities and priorities, including the Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility.

This is provided in confidence to the ESC. The relevant Council Report that considered the

adoption of the Leisure Facilities Development Plan from December 2014 (including the LFDP that

informs the reference document provided in Attachment 7b) and taking into account a community,

industry and government consultation process is also included as Attachment 7c.

Further information about the population and demography of Cranbourne East can be found at

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/about-casey/demographics and in Attachment 7d.

It is further reiterated that the population of Cranbourne East is forecast to almost double (from

approximately 22,000 to 42,000) by 2041 due to the area being designated for development of

residential growth by the State Government. As outlined in the City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap

Variation Application submitted ion 21 March 2016 the planning for this growth is undertaken by the

Metropolitan Planning Authority and approved by the Minister for Planning who may consider

recommendations from an Independent Planning Panel. The Casey Planning Scheme now secures

the strategic land use planning including designating areas (based on demonstrated need and

considering Council’s Leisure Facilities Development Plan) for future sporting reserves. Some of

these are partially funding by Development Contributions Plans as well. Any unfunded liabilities

from this process will be subject to alternative funding mechanisms, to date which have been

secured predominantly from rates. The impact of rate capping will see the ability for Council to

continue to contribute to the development of unfunded community, recreation, road and land

projects required to service residential growth from rates.

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/about-casey/demographics

5 | P a g e

8 The application reports that there will be increased demand on other facilities in the

area if the project is not implemented in 2016-17. Please provide more details about

the outdoor facilities currently existing around Cranbourne East and their level of

usage.

Please see response above to ESC RFI #7. Attachment 7a includes details of the surrounding

sports facilities and their usage.

9 The current project nomination template is dated October 2014. Please provide

more updated information (if any) about the readiness of this project for 2016-17

implementation.

The Hunt Club project was originally scoped in October 2014 for consideration for funding in the

2015/16 Capital Works Program. It was adopted June 2015 for design to commence in 2015/16

and construction to follow over the subsequent two years (commencing 2016/17). The existing

nomination template was included as part of the 16/17 Budget and Capital Works Development

Process and the City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application.

The design has been completed and the project is ready for implementation in 2016/17 subject to

the outcome of the 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application.

The Business Case is provided as Attachment 9a. Please note that this is dated from the 2013/14

Capital Works Program when this project was first introduced and assessed as a Capital Works

Project. At that time, it was adopted in 2013/14 as a project to commence in the then year 3 (being

2016/17). This is despite the project nomination form (which was developed after the business case

accordingly) recommending earlier provision.

1.3 Reasons – Autumn Place Family and Community Centre

10 The application identifies that if application is not successful, “this project would need to

be reprioritised in the latter years of the Capital Works Program. It may not be possible

to fund it then given the higher priorities in those years will likely focus on renewal, new

infrastructure in growth areas and funding the DCP shortfalls for infrastructure that are

forecast.” What are your policies and processes in prioritising new capital expenditure

There is a process for prioritising the Capital Works Program in the City of Casey. Relevant for the

Autumn Place Family and Community Centre, the procedure is provided as Attachment 10a. To

further assist, some considerations for the prioritisation process is also provided in Attachment 10b.

This outlines how the assessment of the projects is undertaken.

These documents are internal working documents, so are requested to be treated “in confidence”.

11 Please provide the relevant section of the Asset Management Plan which discusses the

timing for the replacement of the existing facility.

The relevant Asset Management Plan is provided in Attachment 11a.

This document is an internal working document, and is also requested to be treated “in confidence”.

It is noted that the outcomes and key outputs of this (and other Asset Management Plans) feeds

into the Financial and Service Forecasts Policy which has previously been provided to the ESC on

21 March 2016 with the City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application. This document is

available on the City of Casey website to inform the community about the management of assets

within Council’s Financial and Services Forecasts Policy.

6 | P a g e

Some further asset planning information, that supported the nomination of this project to the 5 year

Capital Works process is provided in Attachment 11b.

12 The current project nomination template is dated October 2014. Please provide more

updated information (if any) about the readiness of this project for 2016-17

implementation.

The Autumn Place Family and Children’s Centre project was originally scoped in October 2014 for

consideration for funding in the 2015/16 Capital Works Program. It was adopted in June 2015,

construction planned over two years to commence in 2016/17.

The existing nomination template was included as part of the 2016/17 Budget and Capital Works

Development Process and the City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application. The timing of

this project was also reviewed with it now due to be constructed over two years to commence in

2017/18. The business case has already been provided to the ESC with the City of Casey 2016/17

Rate Cap Variation Application.

The design of this Family and Community Centre is completed and the project is ready to be

delivered subject to the outcome of the 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application.

1.4 Engagement

We would like to better understand how the community engagement in October 2015 is

consistent with the engagement principles under our Guidance for Councils including:

13 the nature of “financial data and services narratives around the possible impact

of increasing or decreasing a particular service” provided to participants during

group discussions. Can you also provide us with some examples? For example,

the information that was provided, the nature of community feedback, and how

community feedback was taken into account in making the decision to apply for a

higher cap.

Clarification on this query was requested by the City of Casey from the ESC Assessment Team

(ESC) on 7 April 2016 as the City of Casey believed that the financial data and services narratives

referred to in the RFI had already been provided in full to the ESC in Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap

Variation Application on 21 March 2016. This was included within Attachment 3.1 (pages 18-26

inclusive).

In their response to the clarification request on 8 April 2016, the ESC confirmed that they are

‘…interested to know if during that December 2015 forum the Council has responded directly to

these issues [assuming the issues raised is reference to the October 2015 forum]. If yes, what was

the Council's response? If not, we are interested to know why. (We observe that this is the same

issue being raised by the ratepayer who wrote to Council cc the Commission, which we have

attached in the RFI.)…’

In response to the further clarification of this RFI, it is noted that the outcome of the October 2015

Casey Lets Chat forum did inform the way in which the Council responded to Rate Capping.

Participants in the October 2015 Casey Lets Chat forum were provided with information on

7 | P a g e

challenges and drivers having an impact on Casey’s future, such as population growth. Participants

were informed on how Council will need to balance investment in maintaining ageing infrastructure,

while constructing new infrastructure to meet the needs of our new and growing communities.

The October 2015 Forum identified that the Community value Council services and the majority

wanted levels of services to remain the same, or increase. As such, the focus on Council’s

response to rate capping was required to focus on new infrastructure as a reduction in capital

expenditure will allow Council to maintain services as high as possible in a rate capped

environment, as the overall level of rates funding would decrease with CPI based general rate

increases. This outcome is also not desirable as the provision of new infrastructure is fundamental

in growth areas to provide facilities to run the services from, the services that the community told us

they want to keep the same or increase the levels of. This is how the Council took into

consideration the feedback from the engagement forums in its decision to apply for a Rate Cap

Variation.

14 We observe some of the observations made by respondents during the

December 2015 about not having enough information in terms of what other

projects are planned, lack of alternative options, infrastructure costs control and

council expenditure, rationalisation among others. There were also comments

about Council having too many outdoor facilities and whether other funding

options have been considered. What is the Council’s response to this feedback?

Has the Council reported back to the community, via any method of

communication, to explain its decision?

In response to the observations that respondents did not have enough information it is noted that

given the tight timeframes upon which the consultation was undertaken to meet the expected ESC

timelines (noting the ESC draft report which outlined these was not available until later in October

2015 , and prior to the final guidance being released by the ESC in December 2015), balanced with

wanting to make the forum specific and meaningful enough to inform any decision to lodge a Rate

Cap Variation Application, a direct approach was taken in relation to the consultation content and

material for respondents. The objectives of the forum and how best to achieve this was

workshopped with the consultants engaged to assist in this task, with the recommendation to

provide as much information as possible given the timeframe given.

A clear message from the respondents was that they appreciated the opportunity to be engaged

and would like to be engaged earlier and more often. This feedback has been taken on board and

will inform the development of the Community Engagement Strategy, which is currently underway.

This was directly relayed to the participants in the communications back to them via email which is

included as Attachment 14a. This Attachment provides the email correspondence that was sent to

participants after the Casey Lets Chat Forum in October 2015, the Building our Future Forum in

December 2015 and an update on the Council’s decision to apply for a Rate Cap Variation in

February 2016. Keeping respondents informed is considered by Council to be an important aspect

of this engagement program.

Council also reported back to the community on the outcomes of both forums by publishing the full

reports on Councils website http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/advocacy-consultation/closed-

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/advocacy-consultation/closed-consultations

8 | P a g e

consultations and http://caseyconversations.com.au/buildingourfuture.

In addition, the Council decision to adopt its draft 2016/17 Budget, Capital Works Program and Rate

Cap Variation Application was made at its meeting on 15 March 2016 which is open to the public. A

media release was issued on 2 February 2016 and forum participants emailed directly on 9

February 2016 to advise them of Council’s decision also. A copy of the relevant emails is included

as Attachment 14a A copy of the media release is available at

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/news-publications/mediareleases/blackhole16mar16.

On 21 March 2016 the full City of Casey Rate Cap Variation Application has been publically

available at www.caseyconversations.com.au/budget with an open opportunity for any questions to

be submitted by the community via this online consultation channel.

At the time of finalising this response (11 April 2016) no questions about Council’s application to the

ESC have been received. To assist in relaying the impact of Rate Capping and the response of the

City of Casey, further information has also been prepared to make this easier for the community to

understand. The relevant information about Casey’s growth, need for new infrastructure, the

efficiencies being found across the organisation and how the community consultation informed the

Council’s decision can be found at Attachment 14b and online at

http://caseyconversations.com.au/budget/photos/24081

15 Please note that we have received the attached submissions (attachment A) from a

ratepayer in the City of Casey. What is the Council’s response to this? Council notes the submission that has been received by the ESC from a ratepayer in the City of Casey.

In relation to the elements of the submission that are considered to be relevant to the ESC’s

assessment of Casey’s Rate Cap Variation Application for 2016/17, we provide the following

response(s):

The assertion that the outcomes report from the Community Consultation events were not

disclosed online, or to the participants is incorrect. As noted in the response to RFI #14, this

information was placed on Council’s website and was also sent (by email) to the

participants. It is also included in Casey Rate Cap Variation Application that is on the ESC

and City of Casey websites.

Consistent with the legislated criteria, Council is required to consider the views of the

Community, which it has done.

As detailed in Casey’s Rate Cap Variation application, Council is endeavouring to identify

and find savings and efficiencies to have the lowest rate rise possible, with reductions to the

net cost to rates of 0.63% achieved during the development of the draft 2016/17 Budget

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/advocacy-consultation/closed-consultations

http://caseyconversations.com.au/buildingourfuture

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/council/news-publications/mediareleases/blackhole16mar16

http://www.caseyconversations.com.au/budget

http://caseyconversations.com.au/budget/photos/24081

9 | P a g e

The ratepayer had a meeting with a Councillor at the Narre Warren Civic Centre at 9am on

Monday 4th April, where they spoke about a broad range of matters.

There is opportunity for residents and ratepayers to engage with Council in relation to the City of

Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application and Budget process (in addition to the Section

223 process as required by the Local Government Act) online at

www.caseyconversations.com.au/budget. The ratepayer is aware of these, as he used the

Casey Conversation engagement forum in late 2015 to put forward some suggestions to

Council, and has also made submissions on Council’s draft budgets in recent years.

1.5 Value and Efficiency

16 The response to criteria four as written in the council’s higher cap application should be

based on the 6 Best Value Principles. Please address this.

Within its 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application Council, provided details of the activities that it

undertakes to comply with the Best Value Principles, however, it is acknowledged that it did not

explicitly link back this information to the principles in its response to Criteria 4 in the format that

was suggested in the ESC guidance material that was released on 11 December 2015.

A new Attachment 16a has been prepared in response to this ESC RFI, that responds directly to

the Best Value Principles, and explains the activities and processes that Council has in place in

relation to these matters.

17 Explain briefly the internal process for developing and approving key new capital

projects which gets included in the Capital Works Program. Also, at what stage of the

process are project nomination form and business case required?

The process for developing and approving new capital projects has already been provided in

response to #10.

It is considered that given the magnitude of the capital works program, and the connection with the

delivery and implementation of all the Council adopted policies, these are often the basis for which

a project will be considered. This negates the need to develop significant business cases which are

limited to being required only when the project is not identified in a Council adopted policy or are of

a significant value.

For the two projects identified as part of the City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application,

business cases were required and these have both now been provided to the ESC.

Clarification is also sought on the following matters:

18 What is the Council’s threshold level for procurement based on its procurement

strategy? Will these two projects be above the thresholds and tendered?

Consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Act, the thresholds for public tendering

contained in Casey’s procurement procedures is $150,000.

Noting the value of these two projects, the Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility and

10 | P a g e

the Autumn Place Family and Community Centre, their major components will be subject to public

tendering.

19 Please provide the business case for the Hunt Club Football and Cricket

Recreation Facility.

This is provided in response to RFI #9.

1.6 Trade Offs and Alternative Funding

Alternative Funding Options

20 During our meeting on 24 March 2016, Council Officer explained that the Council’s

policy is to use borrowings for big and one-off projects similar to Bunjil Place and not for

routine projects similar to the Hunt Club and Autumn Place projects. Please provide us a

copy of Council’s borrowing policy or a website link to the latest version if it is publicly

available.

Council’s Debt Policy/Strategy is contained in its SRP (pg 4/5) – which was an attachment (6.2 and

6.3) to Council’s Rate Cap Variation Application.

21 The application noted that borrowing was not supported by the community during the

December 2015 forum. Could you please provide supporting evidences about this? The response to this RFI is included in Attachment 21, which expands upon the information that

was contained in Casey’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application..

22 Is there any scope for the City of Casey to borrow to fund the two projects and what

would be the impact on the council’s adjusted underlying results, for the duration of the

LTFP, if borrowings are used?



Casey sought clarification on whether rates would increase to cover the additional loan repayments

that would result in this situation. Casey was directed to model this scenario with rate cap rises of

2.5%. The outputs of this modelling for the SRP period (Scenario 3) are contained in Attachment

22a.

Casey does not support this scenario, as it results in an unbalanced (and unfunded) budget position

across the SRP and beyond, for the principal and interest payments, and is inconsistent with

position included in Council’s application about the use of borrowings for the impacts of the 2.5%

rate cap.

Also provided on an “in confidence” basis, in Attachment 22b, are workings prepared by Casey,

showing the impact of the exclusive use of borrowings to respond to the impacts on projected rate

revenue of a 2.5% rate cap, for the next 10 years (which impacts for 19 years before the loans are

fully repaid).

23 Is there any scope for the City of Casey to use part of its holdings of current financial

assets and working capital as alternative funding options for the two projects? What are Council analyses its financial assets and working capital position each budget. Although Council

11 | P a g e

the council’s policies and practices on the level and usage of current financial assets

and working capital?

has a high level of financial assets, there are only minimal amounts of untied or uncommitted

funding held by Council, which is consistent with Council’s aim to have the lowest rate rise possible.

Council uses a rates statement, which is a hybrid operating and cash flow statement to work out its

rates requirement, and ensure that all of its commitments and budget allocation decisions are fully

funded, either by rates or other funding sources.

A summary of the commitments against Council’s financial assets and working capital (i.e.

creditors, deposits and trust funds, employee provisions and funds held in reserves) are included in

Attachment 23, based on Council’s draft 2016-20 SRP, where it can be seen that this position is

slightly negative. Although it is acknowledged that not all of these commitments would fall due at

once, so Council certainly has sufficient funding for its day to day operations.

It would not be possible to use Council’s current financial assets or working capital as a sustainable

alternative funding source, as it would not be “funded” and would need to be replaced or

replenished in a future financial period.

The summary shown in Attachment 23 has also been prepared for each of the scenarios that the

ESC has requested Casey to prepare as part of this RFI process, and compared to the baseline

position from Council’s draft 2016-20 SRP as included in Attachments 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 22a, 32b and

32c.

24 Please show the impact on the council’s adjusted underlying results if it avails of its

current financial assets and working capital to finance these two projects instead? As requested by the ESC, this scenario has been prepared by Casey for the SRP period, based on

a 2.5% rate increase throughout, and is contained within Attachment 4b including a summary of the

financial assets and working capital position, and the commitments against it.

25 Were the two projects considered for funding under the Interface Growth Fund or any

similar grants? Why not? The two projects were not considered for funding under the 2015-16 Interface Growth Fund. This is

because the projects did not meet the 2015-16 Criteria as strongly as other projects nominated

(some of which were successful in obtaining funding). The Guidelines can be found online at

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/305912/IGF-application-guidelines.PDF

The following comments are provided in support of the above statement, based particularly on two

of the Criteria outlined in the Guidelines:

Demonstrated ability to deliver. It is noted that the 2015-16 IGF criteria required projects to

be sufficiently developed to commence within six month of the grant being awarded. The

timeframe required applications to be developed and submitted by July 2015 with

announcements from by November 2015. The Hunt Club Football and Recreation Facility

was less advanced than the other projects nominated, noting its readiness for

http://www.delwp.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/305912/IGF-application-guidelines.PDF

12 | P a g e

commencement of works in 2016/17 subject to the outcome of the City of Casey 2016/17

Rate Cap Variation Application. The second round of funding announced more recently was

also drawn from the same nominations that were put forward in July 2015 as the work on

the applications was already undertaken for these projects and feedback on the first round

of funding had been received from DELWP about these. Additionally, the Autumn Place

Family and Community Centre as one of the two projects referred to by the ESC in this

query is not due for commencement until 2017/18 and therefore was considered to not meet

this criteria at all. It is noted that both of the projects that were successful in receiving

funding through the first round of the IGF are currently being built or about to commence

(construction contract awarded).

Investment from other sources. Criteria 5 details that it is mandatory that Councils

contribute their own resources and funding to any 2015-16 IGF funded projects. At the time

of development of the nominated projects for the 2015-16 IGF, it was recognised that the

projects put forward were of a higher priority for commitment and delivery within the

timeframes specified and therefore it was considered appropriate to commit Council funds

as investment from other sources as per this requirement.

At the time of the 2015-16 IGF call for nominations, Council had not contemplated how it would

respond to the impact of the proposed Rate Capping Framework, for which the draft report of the

ESC was still pending. As outlined in earlier responses to this Request for Further Information by

the ESC, the decision to pursue a capital expenditure Rate Cap Variation Application was informed

by the outcome of the Casey Lets Chat engagement forum in October 2015 (after the 2015-16 IGF

nomination process) where members of the community informed Council about the high value

placed on the provision of Council services. This includes a desire to see more or the same spent

on Council services. Between October and the December 2015 Building our Future Forum, the

Council considered if it would be able to achieve maintenance on service provision and also its

commitment to new infrastructure to run services, activities and programs from.

It was determined that in the interests of the significant pipeline of infrastructure required for the

benefit of the existing 300,000 and additional 190,000 strong community that is and will be the City

of Casey, it cannot afford to reduce its capital expenditure and it was resolved to progress a Rate

Cap Variation Application accordingly.

26 What information can you provide us about your general reserves?

The majority of Council’s general reserve relate to reserves held to fund future capital works.

Reserves for this purposes include numerous DCP related reserves (that receive contributions from

new developments and estates, that are then used to future capital works projects), public open

13 | P a g e

space reserve (that receives public open space contributions from developments, that can only be

used to purchase and improve public open space for the community), plant (vehicles) reserve,

Asset Management Plan reserves for Casey RACE and Casey ARC, Land Acquisition Reserve

(with funds from Council’s property operations and asset sales used for future land purchases),

Bunjil Place Reserve (a major Council project that is under construction), Net Gain/Offset Reserve

(funds collected for environment works, that Council undertakes, that have a long term expenditure

tail), Off Street Parking, Capital Works Carry-Over projects, and an Operating Reserve (for

unexpended prior year grants, and incomplete prior year projects).

Council reviews its reserves in each budget process and at the end of each financial year, to make

use of any funds held in reserves that it is able to (i.e. those that meet the conditions of the funding

source, or have become untied or uncommitted since the last review).

Efficiencies

27 The council identifies that there is a 0.63 per cent net savings in costs in 2016-17. What

is the equivalent amount of said savings? The equivalent amount of the 0.63% net cost savings to rates identified during the development of

Casey’s draft 2016-17 Budget is $1.004m.

28 The application identifies that the 2016-17 draft budget includes a reduction in the

standard or level of services relevant to a limited number of areas across councils. What

are these affected service areas?

The affected service areas included a reduction in the frequency that Council mows the grass on

the verges of VicRoads roads, reduction of growth to funding of libraries, Home and Community

Care and school crossing supervisors. This information is publically available at

www.caseyconversations.com.au/budget/faqs.

29 The application also identifies $9 million and over $21 million gap in infrastructure

funding over the next five and 10 years, respectively, if the application for a higher cap

for 2016-17 is not successful. Could you please explain the basis of these gaps?

A table with this information has been prepared, and is included as Attachment 29a.

In essence, 2 scenarios are shown.

In the first 2 tables, it shows the 5 year ($9.1m) and 10 year ($21m) impacts on Council’s general

Rate Revenue if Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application was unsuccessful, but future

year Rate Cap Variation Applications were successful, consistent with Council’s draft 2016-20 SRP

and draft LTFP

In the final table, it shows the 5 year ($38.6m) and 10 year ($168m) impacts on general Rate

Revenue if Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application was unsuccessful, and a constant rate

cap of 2.5% applied in future years, compared with Council’s draft 2016-20 SRP and draft LTFP.

1.7 Long Term Planning

30 Please provide the following documents and information (if they exist):

In response to the request for documents and information, please see response below:

http://www.caseyconversations.com.au/budget/faqs

14 | P a g e

1. The whole 2016-26 LTFP document (we currently only have the financial statements

under the LTFP) or even the website link to the LTFP if publicly available

2. Asset Management Plan or website link to the latest version if available online

3. Latest 5-Year Capital Works Program

4. Debt policy/strategy.

1. Not possible – as per response to RFI # 6

2. A copy of the Asset Management Plan for Buildings has been provided in confidence in

response to the ESC RFI #11. A copy of the Asset Management Plan for Parks (including

Sporting Facilities) is also now included as Attachment 30, which is provided in confidence to

the ESC to assist in understanding the long term planning within the City of Casey

3. The latest 5 Year CWP, adopted by Council on 15 March 2016, is contained in Attachment 30b.

4. Council’s Debt Policy/Strategy is contained in its SRP (pg 4/5) – which was an attachment (6.2

and 6.3) to Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application

1.8 Other Information

Historical Capital Expenditure Spend

31 There have been variations in Council’s capital works program over recent years (see

Figure 1 and Table 2 below). Council has underspent on new assets by 16 per cent on

average over the past five years and underspent on renewal by 11 per cent on average

over the past five years. It is important that Council clearly explains these changes. It is

also important for Council to explain whether these changes have impacted on the

Council’s current need for additional revenue to fund capital works.



As part of its clarification, Casey offered to provide the explanations that had been published each

year in its annual report in relation to variances in those years in the Capital Works Program.

The ESC indicated that it would be happy to receive this information, which is included in

Attachment 31.

Casey will be happy to work with the ESC Assessment Team if they have any other queries on this

item, after they have reviewed and considered the new information provided.

Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) Financial Indicators

32 Please complete the tables below. These tables utilise the existing LGPRF financial

indicator projections for the next 4 years (or longer if available), and provide updated

scenarios based on a) the proposed higher cap, and b) based on the average rate cap

of 2.5 per cent. This information will aid in demonstrating the potential impacts to the

Council with and without the higher cap.



Within Attachment 29, Casey has completed the requested LGPRF measure tables based on 8

scenarios, which included Casey draft 2016-20 SRP (baseline), items a) and b) requested here, as

well as the outcomes that result from the SRP modelling that was requested in RFI #3 (rate cap

15 | P a g e

applied, and projects ceased), RFI #4 (rate cap applied and projects still undertaken) and RFI #22

(use of borrowings).

Essential Services Commission Council Profile

33 The Council profile is a snapshot of the data the Commission has collected to provide

contextual information about Council prior to applying for higher caps. It includes data

collected from council budgets, annual reports, the Victorian Grants Commission data,

the LGPRF and the VAGO indicators.

The document represents the Commission staff's understanding of some data about the

Council. We are extending to the Council the opportunity to correct any data transfer

errors that may have occurred when the data was extracted. The Commission requests

that the Council review the information collected in the Council profile, to ensure the

information is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

Some minor edits and suggestions have already been communicated to the ESC by Casey.

Some further minor clarifications and edits have been identified for the ESC’s consideration, which

will be communicated separately.

Casey also notes that some of this information will be refined as a result of the revised and

amended baseline template that is provided in Attachment 34, in response to RFI items 34 to 45.

Baseline Budget Information To prepare the responses to RFI items 34 to 45, a teleconference was arranged with the nominated

ESC contact officer, Mr Liam Jackson., which took place on the morning of 11 April 2016. During

the teleconference and a subsequent email the required treatment of a number of the items

identified was discussed and agreed, and it was noted that there were some entries that impacted

Casey’s budgets and actuals that were not captured in the current versions of the Services and

Assets templates that were required to be completed. Casey has made the agreed adjustments,

and has prepared an amended version of the ESC Baseline Template (Attachment 34).

34 Income has been entered for service 93: debt servicing for the ‘Revenue Base’ sheet

and ‘Revenue WHC’ sheet. Is this correct?

After the discussions between Casey and the ESC on 11 April 2016, it was agreed that this entry

should be removed, as it related to prior year income that was being used to make an additional

loan principal repayment in 2015/16. The debt servicing lines on all the templates have been

revised, to reflect interest expense only, with principal repayment now excluded from here.

35 Income has been entered for service 100: depreciation for the ‘Revenue WHC’ sheet. Is

this correct?


should be realigned, as it had been inadvertently transposed from another line.

36 It appears that the income entered in row 104 to row 114 for the ‘Revenue WHC’ sheet

relates to the service in the following row e.g. the income entered for service 93: debt

servicing (row 104) appears to be related to service 94: developer contributions (row

105). This may explain dot point two above. Please review.

After the discussions between Casey and the ESC on 11 April 2016, it was agreed that these

entries should be realigned, as they had been inadvertently loaded into the incorrect line. Some

were also agreed to be removed, as discussed in some of the RFI responses below.

16 | P a g e

37 Rates and charges have been entered as service 103: rates and charges on the

‘Revenue NHC’ sheet. Rates and charges should only be entered once in each revenue

sheet, in the total rates and charges cell R153. Please review.


should be removed. It had been inadvertently transposed from another line, however, the number

included related to another activity, which has been agreed to exclude from this template.

38 For ‘Capital works – Reserve funding’, it may not be appropriate to class this cash flow

as a ‘revenue’? All revenues that are shown in the revenue sheets are to capture the

income that would be reported on the income statement.


should be removed from this template. This information is partially picked up on the Assets sheet,

although a full reconciliation of Capital Works funding is not captured in the templates, although it is

shown in the draft 2016-20 SRP that was also part of Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation

Application.

Expense Sheets

39 There may be an issue with capital expenditure being placed in the expenditure sheets.

The expenditure sheets are to capture operating expenditure only. All capital

expenditures are to be shown in the ‘Assets’ sheets. Therefore services 97, 98 and 99

should not have any expenditure allocated to them in the expenditure sheets. Please

review.


should be removed from this template. This information is partially picked up on the Assets sheet,

although a full reconciliation of Capital Works funding is not captured in the templates, although it is

shown in the draft 2016-20 SRP that was also part of Council’s 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation

Application.

40 Expense has been entered for service 94: developer contributions for the ‘Expenditure

Base’ sheet, ‘Expenditure NHC’ sheet and ‘Expenditure WHC’ sheet. Is this correct?


should be removed from this template. This entry was reflecting the transfer of the Developer

Contribution Plan income to reserve, to fund current and future year Capital Works Projects. It was

agreed that this is usually shown in the Equity Statement, rather than the Operating Statement,

however, there was no other place for this information to be reflected in the template.

41 Expense has been entered for service 95: interest on investment for the ‘Expenditure

Base’ sheet, ‘Expenditure NHC’ sheet and ‘Expenditure WHC’ sheet. Is this correct?


should be removed from this template. This entry was reflecting the transfer interest accrued from

Developer Contribution Plan Reserve balances to these reserves, as required by the terms of the

DCP and other Development Agreements. It was agreed that this is usually shown in the Equity

Statement, rather than the Operating Statement, however, there was no other place for this

information to be reflected in the template.

42 Expense has been entered for service 103: asset sales for the ‘Expenditure Base’ sheet,

‘Expenditure NHC’ sheet and ‘Expenditure WHC’ sheet. Is this correct? The expense

entered on each sheet is also equivalent to the revenue entered for service 103: asset

sales on each corresponding revenue sheet. Please review.

After the discussions between Casey and the ESC on 11 April 2016, it was agreed that this entry in

the template was valid, as it relates to the estimated written down value of the asset being

disposed. Upon review a small refinement was made here by Casey.

Asset Sheets

17 | P a g e

43 Council is requesting a rate increase of $1,604,756 for capital expenditure. This is

consistent with L107 of the ‘Analysis’ sheet (variance in expenditure), but inconsistent

with AH35 of the ‘Analysis’ sheet (variance in assets). This may be due to an error in

R29 or W29. Please review.

With the minor difference here, between the $1.604m (L107), and the $1.594m, (AH35), this will be

related to rounding. For Casey, an 0.01% rate increase in 2016/17 is equivalent to $0.016m, so the

0.97% requested is the increase required to maintain a positive Budget outcome for Casey in

2016/17 to deliver the projects (and overall Capital Works Program) identified in Council’s

application.

Other

44 The order and title of service 6 and service 7 is not consistent across each worksheet.

For example, for ‘Revenue Base’ sheet, service 6 is building surveying services and

service 7 is building management services, while for ‘Revenue NHC’ sheet, service 6 is

building management services and service 7 is building surveying services. Building

management services team is also used for the ‘Analysis’ sheet. Please review.

Unfortunately there had been a minor production glitch with the original templates. There matters

have been reviewed and updated, and incorporated as part of the revised and amended template

included in Attachment 34.

45 Income has been entered as negative values and expenses have sometimes been

entered as negative values. Please review.

Council’s finance system treats income as a credit (or a negative), which is how the information was

extracted out of the system to populate the ESC templates. After email correspondence with Mr

Jackson at the ESC, it was agreed that Casey would change the polarity of the income entries, and

provide as part of an amended version of the template.

18 | P a g e

List of Attachments

A number of attachments are provided in support of the responses made to the ESC Request for Information (RFI). The Attachment numbers reference the RFI# in the table above.

1. Attachment 3a – ESC Requested SRP Scenario 1b

2. Attachment 3b – ESC Requested SRP Scenario 1a

3. Attachment 4a – ESC Requested SRP Scenario 2b

4. Attachment b4 – ESC Requested SRP Scenario 2a

5. Attachment 7a – Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility, Planning Analysis

6. Attachment 7b – Confidential – Leisure Facilities Development Plan Reference Document November 2014

7. Attachment 7c – Council Report Leisure Facilities Development Plan Adoption

8. Attachment 7d – Cranbourne East Demographics and Population Community Profile

9. Attachment 9a – Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility Business Case

10. Attachment 10a – Confidential – Process Flow Chart Capital Works Program

11. Attachment 10b – Confidentail – Prioritisation Process Capital Works Process

12. Attachment 11a – Confidential – Building Asset Management Plan 2014

13. Attachment 11b – Confidential – Further Asset Planning Information – Autumn Place Project

14. Attachment 14a –Emails to Casey Lets Chat and Building our Future Forum Participants

15. Attachment 14b – Casey Rate Capping Infographic Panels from Website

16. Attachment 16a – Response to Best Value and Efficiency Request

17. Attachment 21 – Further Information – discussion on Debt – 5 December 2015

18. Attachment 22a – ESC Requested SRP Scenario 3

19. Attachment 22b – Confidential – Workings of Use of Debt to Fill Rate Cap Gap 12 April 2016

20. Attachment 29a – Impact of Unsuccessful Rate Cap Variation Application 12 April 2016

21. Attachment 30a – Confidential – Parks Asset Management Plan 2014

22. Attachment 30b – Council Report and 2016-17 to 2020-21 Five Year Capital Works Program

23. Attachment 31 – Capital Works Program Variance Explanations Extracts from City of Casey Annual Reports 2011 to 2015

24. Attachment 32a – ESC Requested LGPRF Tables

25. Attachment 32b – ESC Requested SRP Scenrio 4a

26. Attachment 32c – ESC Requested SRP Scenario 4b

27. Attachment 34 – City of Casey Baseline Information Template (Post ESC RFI 8 April 2016)

CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

12 April 2016

City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application Attach 3a – SRP Scenario 1b

Background As part of a Request for Further Information (RFI) that was sent through to Casey by the ESC Assessment Team, Casey was requested to prepare some alternate versions of its SRP or LTFP, incorporating some parameters that were advised by the ESC. Casey sought further clarity on certain aspects of these requests on April 7, which the ESC responded to on 8 April. The ESC clarified the rate rise that were sought to be used for the different scenarios, as well as confirming that use of the modelling for the SRP period could be provided at this stage. Included here is the revised financial statements for the SRP that results from the use of the parameters advised by the ESC, as well as the impacts on financial assets and working capital. Further information on the impact on forecast LGPRF measures is contained in Attachment 22. Summary of Scenario – Scenario 1b – Response to RFI #3

• Rate Cap to be applied – (2.5% each year)

• Affected projects to be removed from Capital Works ($38m) Summary of Key Changes – from “baseline” (Casey’s Draft 2016-20 SRP)

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Summary of Changes - from Casey's Draft 2016-20 SRP Rate Cap in Years 1 to 5 - ESC Request/Direction - No Projects

Reduced General Rates Revenue -1605.000 -4987.000 -7651.000 -10581.000 -13778.000

Reduced Capital Expend - Rates -1605.000 -4987.000 -7590.000 -10347.000 -13554.000

Reduced Operating Costs - CWP Related -77.000 -266.000 -274.000

Reduced Depreciation - CWP Related -107.000 -300.000 -315.000

Change to Financial Assets

Change to Interest on Rates -16.000 -32.000 -50.000

Change to Interest on Investments

Baseline Rates Statement Result 0.036 13.778 16.026 -7.482 -13.003

Revised Rates Statement Result 0.036 13.778 16.026 -7.482 -13.003

Change to Rates Result (Annual) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Change to Rates Result (Cumulative) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Change to Op Result -1605.000 -4987.000 -7483.000 -10047.000 -13239.000

Change to Fixed Assets -1605.000 -4987.000 -7483.000 -10047.000 -13239.000

Scenario 1b - Rate Cap of 2.5% - Years 1 to 5, CWP projects excluded

City of Casey ESC directed scenario. This scenario is not supported by Casey, as inconsistent with its draft 16-20 SRP

Draft Budgeted Comprehensive Income Statement

For the years ending 30 June 2017 to 2020

2016/2017 Budget 2017/2018 Budget 2018/2019 Budget 2019/2020 Budget 2020/2021 Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Incomes

Rates & Charges 200,020 210,841 221,502 233,721 245,361

Statutory Fees and fines 7,305 7,190 7,549 7,927 8,823

User Charges 17,527 18,403 19,323 20,289 21,304

Contributions - Cash 15,660 17,046 18,994 17,519 18,044

Contributions - Non Monetary 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

Grants - Operating (recurrent) 51,028 53,208 55,492 57,881 60,379

Grants - Operating (non-recurrent) 627 646 665 685 706

Grants - Capital (recurrent) 2,180 2,240 2,300 2,360 2,420

Grants - Capital (non recurrent) 7,499 5,060 - - -

Interest 6,604 6,808 7,426 8,070 8,302

Net Gain/(Loss) on Disposal of Property,

Infrastructure Plant & Equipment 50 50 50 50 50

Total Income 348,499 361,492 373,301 388,502 405,388

Expenses

Employee Costs 102,047 109,330 116,664 123,955 131,702

Materials and Consumables 62,946 65,927 69,149 72,046 74,916

External Contracts 58,873 62,123 65,423 69,207 73,522

Utilities 7,070 7,476 7,850 8,242 8,654

Borrowing Costs 2,788 6,419 7,107 6,913 6,707

Depreciation 33,200 35,600 37,593 38,300 39,185

Other Expenditure -

Total Expenses 266,925 286,876 303,786 318,662 334,686

Surplus /(deficit) 81,575 74,616 69,516 69,839 70,703

Other Comprehensive Income

Items that will not be classified to surplus or

Deficit

Share of other Comprehensive income of

associates and joint ventures accounted for by

equity method - (85) (90) (97) (100)

Total comprehensive result 81,575 74,531 69,426 69,742 70,603

Baseline - Casey Draft 16-20 SRP 83,180 79,518 76,909 79,789 83,842

Movement in this Scenario (1,605) (4,987) (7,483) (10,047) (13,239)

Cumulative Movement in this Scenario (1,605) (6,592) (14,075) (24,122) (37,361)

City of Casey

Draft Budgeted Balance Sheet

for the years ending 30 June 2017 to 2020


$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Current Assets

Cash Assets 24,136 14,336 15,132 17,485 19,033 Financial assets 183,602 200,602 214,602 224,602 237,602

Receivables 25,496 26,985 27,889 28,951 33,719

Other 3,482 3,656 3,838 4,030 4,232

Total Current Assets 236,715 245,579 261,461 275,068 294,586

Non Current Assets

Financial Assets - - - - -

Investments -Equities 4,436 4,351 4,261 4,164 4,064

Property Plant & Equipments 2,411,457 2,485,052 2,586,420 2,642,481 2,692,948

Total Non-Current Assets 2,415,893 2,489,404 2,590,680 2,646,645 2,697,012

Total Assets 2,652,608 2,734,983 2,852,142 2,921,713 2,991,598

Current Liabilities

Payables 26,849 26,901 26,741 26,677 26,483

Trusts 8,240 7,857 6,798 7,184 6,829

Interest - bearing Liabilities 1,927 2,907 3,086 3,276 3,318

Provisions 25,251 26,331 27,627 28,923 30,789

Total Current Liabilities 62,267 63,997 64,252 66,061 67,419

Non Current Liabilities

Payables - - - - -


Provisions 43,224 43,944 44,808 46,104 47,348

Total Non-Current Liabilities 128,344 134,457 132,235 130,255 128,181

Total Liabilities 190,610 198,454 196,486 196,316 195,600

Net Assets 2,461,997 2,536,530 2,655,654 2,725,398 2,795,998

Equity

Accumulated Surplus 1,613,694 1,680,422 1,738,616 1,794,808 1,849,384

Asset Revaluation Reserve 670,454 670,454 720,155 720,155 720,155

Other Reserves 177,849 185,654 196,885 210,434 226,460

Total Equity 2,461,997 2,536,530 2,655,654 2,725,398 2,795,998

Cash/Financial Assets - Baseline 207,906 215,467 230,457 242,921 257,579

Movement in this Scenario (169) (529) (723) (834) (944)

Property, Plant and Equipment - Baseline 2,412,877 2,491,459 2,600,469 2,666,680 2,730,496


Borrowings - Baseline 87,047 93,420 90,513 87,427 84,151

Movement in this Scenario (0) - (0) 0 -

City of Casey

Draft Budgeted Statement of Cash Flows

For the years ending 30th June 2017 to 2020


$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Cash flows from operating activities

Rates and Charges 199,670 210,099 220,723 232,898 244,497

Statutory Fees and Fines 7,201 6,935 7,427 7,653 8,656

User Fees 18,861 19,625 20,594 21,630 22,711

Contributions and Donations 15,660 17,046 18,994 17,519 18,044

Grants - Operating 51,655 54,760 57,090 59,566 58,323

Grants - Capital 10,136 7,300 2,300 2,360 2,420

Interest Received 7,042 6,243 7,372 8,016 8,282

GST Recoveries 23,189 17,774 16,133 17,204 17,327

Employee costs (99,647) (108,276) (115,345) (122,305) (129,641)

Material and Services (153,073) (154,731) (160,209) (168,265) (176,130)

Net cash provided by operating activities 80,695 76,775 75,079 76,276 74,490

Cash flows from investing activities

Payments for Property, Plant, Equipment

and Infrastructure (131,281) (72,249) (50,401) (55,537) (50,805)

Investments in Financial assets (22,000) (17,000) (14,000) (10,000) (13,000)

Proceeds from Sales of Property, Plant

and Equipment 3,173 3,104 1,192 1,226 1,203

Net Movements in Trust Deposits (281) (382) (1,059) 386 (356)

Net cash (used in) investing activities (150,389) (86,528) (64,269) (63,925) (62,958)

Cash flow from financing activities

Interest Paid (548) (6,419) (7,107) (6,913) (6,707)

Proceeds from Interest bearing Liabilities 76,700 8,300 - - -

Repayment of Interest bearing Liabilities (1,325) (1,927) (2,907) (3,086) (3,276)

Payment of Super Liability - - - - -

Net cash (used in) /provided by

financing activities 74,827 (47) (10,014) (9,999) (9,983)

Net increase (decrease) in cash

and Cash equivalents 5,133 (9,799) 796 2,353 1,548

Cash and cash equivalents at the

beginning of the financial year 19,003 24,136 14,336 15,132 17,485

Cash and cash equivalents at

end of the financial year 24,136 14,336 15,132 17,485 19,033

Analysis of Casey Working Capital / Financial Assets Positions - allowing for cash backed commitments/liabilities

Scenario 1b - Rate Cap of 2.5% - Years 1 to 5, CWP projects excluded

ESC directed scenario. This scenario is not supported by Casey, as inconsistent with its draft 16-20 SRP

2016/2017

Budget

2017/2018

Budget

2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Cash 24,136 14,336 15,132 17,485 19,033

Financial Assets 183,602 200,602 214,602 224,602 237,602

207,737 214,938 229,734 242,087 256,635

Deduct Cash Based "Liabilities"

Payables 26,849 26,901 26,741 26,677 26,483

Trusts 8,240 7,857 6,798 7,184 6,829

Employee Provisions - Current 21,449 22,529 23,825 25,121 26,987

Employee Provisions - Non Current 4,221 4,941 5,805 7,101 8,345

Current Loan repayments 1,927 2,907 3,086 3,276 3,318

General Reserves 177,849 185,654 196,885 210,434 226,460

240,534 250,789 263,139 279,794 298,421

Add back other Working Capital

Receivables 25,496 26,985 27,889 28,951 33,719

Prepayments (Other) 3,482 3,656 3,838 4,030 4,232

28,977 30,640 31,727 32,982 37,951

Adjusted Working Capital Position -3,820 -5,211 -1,678 -4,726 -3,836

Adjusted Working Capital Position (Draft

Casey 16-20 SRP) (Baseline Position) -3,635 -5,026 -1,524 -4,675 -3,895

Change from "Base line" Adjusted Working

Capital Positon-185 -185 -154 -51 59

Non Cash Adjustments to Liabilities

Current Provisions Adjustment (Non Cash) 3,802 3,802 3,802 3,802 3,802

Non -Current Provisions Adjustment 39,003 39,003 39,003 39,003 39,003

CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

12 April 2016

City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application Attach 3b – SRP Scenario 1a

Background As part of a Request for Further Information (RFI) that was sent through to Casey by the ESC Assessment Team, Casey was requested to prepare some alternate versions of its SRP or LTFP, incorporating some parameters that were advised by the ESC. Casey sought further clarity on certain aspects of these requests on April 7, which the ESC responded to on 8 April. The ESC clarified the rate rise that were sought to be used for the different scenarios, as well as confirming that use of the modelling for the SRP period could be provided at this stage. Included here is the revised financial statements for the SRP that results from the use of the parameters advised by the ESC, as well as the impacts on financial assets and working capital. Further information on the impact on forecast LGPRF measures is contained in Attachment 22. Summary of Scenario – Scenario 1a – Response to RFI #3 (Future year SRP applied)

• Casey version. Rate Cap to be applied in year 1 (2.5%), then Casey SRP assumptions apply

• Affected projects to be removed from Capital Works ($8.8m) Summary of Key Changes – from “baseline” (Casey’s Draft 2016-20 SRP)

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Summary of Changes - from Casey's Draft 2016-20 SRP Rate Cap in Year 1, then Casey SRP increases - No Projects


Reduced Capital Expend - Rates -1605.000 -1716.000 -1778.000 -1776.000 -1897.000

Reduced Operating Costs - CWP Related -46.440 -163.440 -163.440

Reduced Depreciation - CWP Related -50.000 -120.000 -120.000

Change to Financial Assets

Change to Interest on Investments


Revised Rates Statement Result 0.036 13.778 16.026 -7.482 -13.003

Change to Rates Result (Annual) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Change to Rates Result (Cumulative) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Change to Op Result -1605.000 -1716.000 -1727.560 -1655.560 -1777.560

Change to Fixed Assets -1605.000 -1716.000 -1728.000 -1656.000 -1777.000

Scenario 1a - rate Cap in Year 1, then Casey SRP Rate Increases - with CWP project expend excluded

City of Casey Casey derived scenario - as 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation can only be for 2016/17



2016/2017

Budget2017/2018 Budget

2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Incomes

Rates & Charges 200,020 214,112 227,329 242,363 257,078


User Charges 17,527 18,403 19,323 20,289 21,304







Interest 6,604 6,808 7,442 8,102 8,352



Total Income 348,499 364,763 379,144 397,176 417,155

Expenses

Employee Costs 102,047 109,330 116,664 123,955 131,702



Utilities 7,070 7,476 7,850 8,242 8,654

Borrowing Costs 2,788 6,419 7,107 6,913 6,707

Depreciation 33,200 35,600 37,650 38,480 39,380

Other Expenditure -

Total Expenses 266,925 286,876 303,873 318,945 334,991

Surplus /(deficit) 81,575 77,887 75,271 78,231 82,164



Deficit



equity method - (85) (90) (97) (100)





City of Casey



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Current Assets


Receivables 25,496 26,996 27,922 29,016 33,827

Other 3,482 3,656 3,838 4,030 4,232


Non Current Assets





Total Assets 2,652,608 2,738,510 2,861,725 2,939,930 3,021,536

Current Liabilities

Payables 26,849 26,928 26,792 26,759 26,591

Trusts 8,240 8,086 7,238 7,837 7,713


Provisions 25,251 26,331 27,627 28,923 30,789



Payables - - - - -


Provisions 43,224 43,944 44,808 46,104 47,348



Net Assets 2,461,997 2,539,801 2,664,746 2,742,881 2,824,943

Equity



Other Reserves 177,849 185,654 196,885 210,434 226,460

Total Equity 2,461,997 2,539,801 2,664,746 2,742,881 2,824,943


Movement in this Scenario (169) (285) (296) (299) (303)



City of Casey



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000




User Fees 18,861 19,625 20,594 21,630 22,711



Grants - Capital 10,136 7,300 2,300 2,360 2,420


GST Recoveries 23,189 18,101 16,720 18,081 18,514

Employee costs (99,647) (108,276) (115,345) (122,305) (129,641)








and Equipment 3,173 3,104 1,192 1,226 1,203

Net Movements in Trust Deposits (281) (153) (849) 599 (123)



Interest Paid (548) (6,419) (7,107) (6,913) (6,707)







and Cash equivalents 5,133 (9,555) 978 2,462 1,654






Scenario 1a - rate Cap in Year 1, then Casey SRP Rate Increases - with CWP project expend excluded

Casey derived scenario - as 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation can only be for 2016/17

2016/2017

Budget

2017/2018

Budget

2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Cash 24,136 14,581 15,559 18,021 19,675


207,737 215,182 230,161 242,622 257,276


Payables 26,849 26,928 26,792 26,759 26,591

Trusts 8,240 8,086 7,238 7,837 7,713





240,534 251,045 263,630 280,528 299,414


Receivables 25,496 26,996 27,922 29,016 33,827


28,977 30,652 31,760 33,047 38,059





Capital Positon-185 -185 -184 -184 -185




CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

12 April 2016

City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application Attach 4a – SRP Scenario 2b

Background As part of a Request for Further Information (RFI) that was sent through to Casey by the ESC Assessment Team, Casey was requested to prepare some alternate versions of its SRP or LTFP, incorporating some parameters that were advised by the ESC. Casey sought further clarity on certain aspects of these requests on April 7, which the ESC responded to on 8 April. The ESC clarified the rate rise that were sought to be used for the different scenarios, as well as confirming that use of the modelling for the SRP period could be provided at this stage. Included here is the revised financial statements for the SRP that results from the use of the parameters advised by the ESC, as well as the impacts on financial assets and working capital. Further information on the impact on forecast LGPRF measures is contained in Attachment 22. Summary of Scenario – Scenario 2b – Response to RFI #4

• Rate Cap to be applied – (2.5% each year)

• All projects in Capital Works still delivered. Budget does not balance in this scenario. Summary of Key Changes – from “baseline” (Casey’s Draft 2016-20 SRP)

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Summary of Changes - from Casey's Draft 2016-20 SRP Rate Cap in Years 1 to 5 - ESC Request/Direction - All Projects


Reduced Capital Expend - Rates 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Reduced Operating Costs - CWP Related 0.000 0.000 0.000

Reduced Depreciation - CWP Related 0.000 0.000 0.000

Change to Financial Assets (estimated - before minor timing impacts) -1605.000 -6647.000 -14559.000 -25752.000 -40600.000

Change to Interest on Rates -16.000 -32.000 -50.000

Change to Interest on Investments -55.000 -245.000 -580.000 -1020.000


Revised Rates Statement Result -1604.964 -5028.222 -7895.974 -11200.482 -14861.003

Change to Rates Result (Annual) -1605.000 -5042.000 -7912.000 -11193.000 -14848.000

Change to Rates Result (Cumulative) -1605.000 -6647.000 -14559.000 -25752.000 -40600.000

Change to Operating result 1605.000 6592.000 14314.000 25172.000 39580.000

Change to Fixed Assets 1605.000 6647.000 14559.000 25752.000 40600.000

Scenario 2b - Rate Cap of 2.5% - Years 1 to 5, all CWP projects still included

City of Casey ESC directed scenario. This scenario is not supported by Casey, as the Budget would not balance



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Incomes

Rates & Charges 200,020 210,841 221,502 233,721 245,361


User Charges 17,527 18,403 19,323 20,289 21,304







Interest 6,604 6,753 7,181 7,490 7,282



Total Income 348,499 361,437 373,056 387,922 404,368

Expenses

Employee Costs 102,047 109,330 116,664 123,955 131,702



Utilities 7,070 7,476 7,850 8,242 8,654

Borrowing Costs 2,788 6,419 7,107 6,913 6,707

Depreciation 33,200 35,600 37,700 38,600 39,500

Other Expenditure -

Total Expenses 266,925 286,876 303,970 319,228 335,275

Surplus /(deficit) 81,575 74,561 69,087 68,693 69,094



Deficit



equity method - (85) (90) (97) (100)





City of Casey



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Current Assets

Cash Assets 22,716 8,256 1,378 (7,284) (20,388) Financial assets 183,602 200,602 214,602 224,602 237,602

Receivables 25,496 26,980 27,868 28,903 33,634

Other 3,482 3,656 3,838 4,030 4,232


Non Current Assets





Total Assets 2,652,608 2,735,305 2,852,416 2,921,095 2,989,640

Current Liabilities

Payables 26,849 26,929 26,798 26,775 26,608

Trusts 8,240 8,207 7,371 7,970 7,856


Provisions 25,251 26,331 27,627 28,923 30,789



Payables - - - - -


Provisions 43,224 43,944 44,808 46,104 47,348



Net Assets 2,461,997 2,536,475 2,655,299 2,723,896 2,792,887

Equity



Other Reserves 177,849 185,654 196,885 210,434 226,460

Total Equity 2,461,997 2,536,475 2,655,299 2,723,896 2,792,887




Movement in this Scenario - - - - -



City of Casey



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000




User Fees 18,861 19,625 20,594 21,630 22,711



Grants - Capital 10,136 7,300 2,300 2,360 2,420


GST Recoveries 23,364 18,273 16,902 18,274 18,718

Employee costs (99,647) (108,276) (115,345) (122,305) (129,641)








and Equipment 3,173 3,104 1,192 1,226 1,203




Interest Paid (548) (6,419) (7,107) (6,913) (6,707)







and Cash equivalents 3,713 (14,460) (6,878) (8,662) (13,104)


beginning of the financial year 19,003 22,716 8,256 1,378 (7,284)


end of the financial year 22,716 8,256 1,378 (7,284) (20,388)


Scenario 2b - Rate Cap of 2.5% - Years 1 to 5, all CWP projects still included

ESC directed scenario. This scenario is not supported by Casey, as the Budget would not balance

2016/2017

Budget

2017/2018

Budget

2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Cash 22,716 8,256 1,378 -7,284 -20,388


206,317 208,857 215,979 217,318 217,214


Payables 26,849 26,929 26,798 26,775 26,608

Trusts 8,240 8,207 7,371 7,970 7,856





240,534 251,166 263,769 280,678 299,574


Receivables 25,496 26,980 27,868 28,903 33,634


28,977 30,636 31,707 32,933 37,866





Capital Positon-1,605 -6,647 -14,559 -25,752 -40,600




CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

12 April 2016

City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation Application Attach 4b – SRP Scenario 2a

Background As part of a Request for Further Information (RFI) that was sent through to Casey by the ESC Assessment Team, Casey was requested to prepare some alternate versions of its SRP or LTFP, incorporating some parameters that were advised by the ESC. Casey sought further clarity on certain aspects of these requests on April 7, which the ESC responded to on 8 April. The ESC clarified the rate rise that were sought to be used for the different scenarios, as well as confirming that use of the modelling for the SRP period could be provided at this stage. Included here is the revised financial statements for the SRP that results from the use of the parameters advised by the ESC, as well as the impacts on financial assets and working capital. Further information on the impact on forecast LGPRF measures is contained in Attachment 22. Summary of Scenario – Scenario 2a – Response to RFI #4 (Future year SRP applied)

• Casey version. Rate Cap to be applied in year 1 (2.5%), then Casey SRP assumptions apply

• All projects in Capital Works still delivered. Budget does not balance in this scenario.

Summary of Key Changes – from “baseline” (Casey’s Draft 2016-20 SRP)

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Summary of Changes - from Casey's Draft 2016-20 SRP Rate Cap in Year 1, then Casey SRP increases - Projects Still


Reduced Capital Expend - Rates 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Reduced Operating Costs - CWP Related 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Reduced Depreciation - CWP Related 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Change to Financial Assets -1605.000 -3376.000 -5325.000 -7474.000 9825.000

Change to Interest on Investments -55.000 -125.000 -210.000 -290.000


Revised Rates Statement Result -1604.964 -1757.222 -1932.974 -2156.482 -2364.003

Change to Rates Result (Annual) -1605.000 -1771.000 -1949.000 -2149.000 -2351.000

Change to Rates Result (Cumulative) -1605.000 -3376.000 -5325.000 -7474.000 -9825.000

Change to Operating result -1605.000 -1771.000 -1949.000 -2149.000 -2351.000

Change to Fixed Assets 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Scenario 2a - Rate Cap in Year 1, then Casey SRP, all CWP projects still included

City of Casey Casey derived scenario - as 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation can only be for 2016/17. Budget not balanced.



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Incomes

Rates & Charges 200,020 214,112 227,329 242,363 257,078


User Charges 17,527 18,403 19,323 20,289 21,304







Interest 6,604 6,753 7,317 7,892 8,062



Total Income 348,499 364,708 379,019 396,966 416,865

Expenses

Employee Costs 102,047 109,330 116,664 123,955 131,702



Utilities 7,070 7,476 7,850 8,242 8,654

Borrowing Costs 2,788 6,419 7,107 6,913 6,707

Depreciation 33,200 35,600 37,700 38,600 39,500

Other Expenditure -

Total Expenses 266,925 286,876 303,970 319,228 335,275

Surplus /(deficit) 81,575 77,832 75,050 77,737 81,591



Deficit



equity method - (85) (90) (97) (100)





City of Casey



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Current Assets


Receivables 25,496 26,992 27,912 28,999 33,803

Other 3,482 3,656 3,838 4,030 4,232


Non Current Assets





Total Assets 2,652,608 2,738,576 2,861,650 2,939,373 3,020,415

Current Liabilities

Payables 26,849 26,929 26,798 26,775 26,608

Trusts 8,240 8,207 7,371 7,970 7,856


Provisions 25,251 26,331 27,627 28,923 30,789



Payables - - - - -


Provisions 43,224 43,944 44,808 46,104 47,348



Net Assets 2,461,997 2,539,746 2,664,533 2,742,174 2,823,662

Equity



Other Reserves 177,849 185,654 196,885 210,434 226,460

Total Equity 2,461,997 2,539,746 2,664,533 2,742,174 2,823,662




Movement in this Scenario - - - - -



City of Casey



2016/2017


2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000




User Fees 18,861 19,625 20,594 21,630 22,711



Grants - Capital 10,136 7,300 2,300 2,360 2,420


GST Recoveries 23,364 18,273 16,902 18,274 18,718

Employee costs (99,647) (108,276) (115,345) (122,305) (129,641)








and Equipment 3,173 3,104 1,192 1,226 1,203




Interest Paid (548) (6,419) (7,107) (6,913) (6,707)







and Cash equivalents 3,713 (11,200) (947) 330 (680)






Scenario 2a - Rate Cap in Year 1, then Casey SRP, all CWP projects still included

Casey derived scenario - as 2016/17 Rate Cap Variation can only be for 2016/17

2016/2017

Budget

2017/2018

Budget

2018/2019

Budget

2019/2020

Budget

2020/2021

Budget

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Cash 22,716 11,515 10,568 10,898 10,219


206,317 212,117 225,170 235,500 247,820


Payables 26,849 26,929 26,798 26,775 26,608

Trusts 8,240 8,207 7,371 7,970 7,856





240,534 251,166 263,769 280,678 299,574


Receivables 25,496 26,992 27,912 28,999 33,803


28,977 30,647 31,750 33,029 38,035





Capital Positon-1,605 -3,376 -5,325 -7,474 -9,825




CASEY.VIC.GOV.AU

12 April 2016

City of Casey 2016/17 Rate Cap

Variation Application

Attachment 7a - Hunt Club

Introduction

This Attachment provides a response to the request for further information by the Essential Services Commission (ESC) in relation to the need for the Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility (reference 7 and 8 in the table of queries and Council officer response), which are as follows:

» More specific information about the population and demography of Cranbourne East.

» The application reports that there will be increased demand on other facilities in the area if the project is not implemented in 2016-17. Please provide more details about the outdoor facilities currently existing around Cranbourne East and their level of usage.

Additional discussion is also provided as to the prioritisation of this project as well as an outline of its proposed second stage which will endeavor to secure a second oval in conjunction with the adjoining Primary School. This demonstrates that Council will actively pursue alternatives and different ways of providing facilities when the opportunities are available. It is noted that this only becomes an option once the base/local level facility is there.

The Leisure Facilities Development Plan Reference Document 2014 is also referred to and provided to the ESC to assist in the response to the request for further information. It is also considered that the relevant Council Reports provide an insight into the preparation of the Leisure Facilities and Development Plan, including consultation that was undertaken by Council to inform its development. Consultation ranged across the community, to industry and government agencies. This is a way in which the objectives of the Council Plan are achieved, through good governance and good planning and policy development. This is subsequently adopted by the Council and implemented through annual plans and budgets accordingly. A copy of the relevant Council Report is provided to the ESC also.

Population of Cranbourne East

Population is the key driver in understanding when demand for additional sports facilities is required. This is underpinned through the Leisure Facilities Development Plan (LFDP) through sport specific Provision Ratios. This outlines what number of courts, fields or ovals for example is needed to meet industry and government standards for participation. These are not stretch targets that would see an ability to increase participation, but just maintain the same level of availability as an area increases population as the case may be around Cranbourne East.

Relevant for the Hunt Club Football and Cricket Recreation Facility, the Provision Ratios for Football and Cricket and the current population for the area is outlined in the table below.

Cranbourne East Population

(2016 est)

Oval Provision AFL Ovals (1:4250) or one oval for every 4250 residents

Cricket Ovals (1:3000) or one oval for every 3000 residents

22,255 LFDP

Provision Ratio

5 7

Actual 2 2

Deficit 3 5

There are currently no local/district level club facilities that have been developed within Cranbourne East at Casey Fields which is classed as a Regional facility. Regional facilities are built and maintained to an elite standard based on the needs of specific sports/activities. They cater for training and competition for teams in elite level competitions as determined by the sports at a State or National Level and in some cases are paid to play within this particular competition. Due to current population demand the City of Casey has delivered 2 District level AFL/Cricket Ovals at Casey Fields to provide for club competition. There is no ability to extend this further at Casey Fields. An extract of the LFDP which defines the different level facilities is included at Appendix 1.

The Hunt Club AFL/Cricket oval development is required to service the Hunt Club and surrounding residents. Already the Hunt Club and surrounds are well populated, with approximately 2500 students enrolled across Cranbourne East Primary School and Cranbourne East Secondary College.

The development of the 1 AFL/Cricket Oval at Hunt Club is required to meet the current provision for AFL & Cricket within Cranbourne East and reduce the deficit in oval provision for the sports of AFL and Cricket. Through the further planning of Cranbourne East, additional facilities will be provided in line with the increase in population expected in the area. The need for these facilities is established through the LFDP and has been tested through an independent planning panel as to the merit of this need.

Impact on Other Facilities.

If the Hunt Club project was not commenced in the 2016/17 financial year then the residents of Hunt Club and Cranbourne East will continue to travel to join existing AFL/Cricket Clubs.

Clubs and reserves in the surrounding area are already at capacity; therefore new residents will be required to travel even further away from their local community to access sport and recreation facilities or choose not to participate in sport due to lack of availability.

The following is a snapshot of the existing local/district AFL/Cricket facilities surrounding Hunt Club:

» Clyde Recreation Reserve - 2.6km (District Level Facility)

» 1 Oval AFL/Cricket facility with pavilion, synthetic wicket, 3 training nets.

» Recent surface, drainage and irrigation upgrade.

» Facility is in good condition.

» Nominated in Clyde Creek PSP (1053) to increase to a 3 oval sites, likely timing is 10+ years.

» Once development progresses and the upgrade to a 3 oval site are imminent, Council will work with the SEJ to form a new junior AFL club and a new senior AFL club.

» Summer Season: home to Clyde Cricket Club with 9 teams including 4 junior, 5 senior

and Milo Junior Cricket. The ground is at capacity, used 7 days a week for training and competition. The Club relies on a range of other grounds across multiple municipalities for competition games, which are allocated by the West Gippsland Cricket Association

(WGCA). Currently a number of the teams would have very few ‘home’ games played at Clyde Recreation Reserve. The club is only able to expand if the WGCA can find alternative playing venues.

» Winter Season: junior match competition ground, allocated by the South East Junior

Football Association (SEJ), and used all day Sundays. The facility does not have a home AFL club. The Tooradin Dalmore Junior Football club use the facility for training 3 nights per week. The ground has the capacity to increase use by up to 2 evenings per week, and occasional Saturday use for juniors. As a new surface, the ground will be monitored during the winter to ensure it can handle extra usage without damaging playing surface.

» JP Cam Reserve - 2.7km (District Level Facility)

» 2 Oval AFL/Cricket facility with pavilion, synthetic wicket, no training nets

» Facility has recently undergone a ground renovation.

» Summer Season: overflow venue only. The facility does not have a home cricket club. It is used by Cranbourne Cricket Club Junior Division for games as they are not permitted to play on the turf wickets Casey Fields as there is no turf wicket junior competition. Also used by Gladiators Cricket Club on Sundays. The facility is at full at full capacity, with Cranbourne Cricket Club already allocated to other reserves in Cranbourne.

» Winter Season: home to Cranbourne Junior Football Club with 17 teams, one of biggest

in municipality. The facility is at full capacity and there is no ability to expand onsite. The club are already allocated to a number of other reserves within Casey (Lawson Poole, Casey Fields), and require new grounds to be developed to grow.

» Casey Fields Regional Sporting Precinct - 1.8km (Regional Level Facility)

» 1 Premier AFL Oval – Leased to an Elite VFL Football Club (Casey Scorpions).

» 2 AFL/ Cricket (Turf) Wicket Ovals.

» 2 District Level AFL/Cricket Ovals.

» 2 ovals are home to Devon Meadows Junior Football Club including 11 junior teams and an Auskick centre.

» As there are no synthetic wickets available domestic senior and junior competition matches are not available.

» Summer Season: home to Casey South Melbourne Cricket Club Casey’s Elite cricket club who currently use two of the premier turf grounds at Casey Fields during the Season. They have 4 senior premier teams.

» Cranbourne Cricket club with 23 teams including 11 senior teams, 12 junior teams and Milo junior cricket, making it the biggest cricket club in Casey. Casey Fields only caters to elite level senior teams within the club as a turf wicket venue. All other teams play at other reserves, including JP Cam Reserve (Cranbourne) and grounds in Narre Warren and Berwick. The grounds are at full capacity and not suitable for further growth.

» Winter Season: home to Cranbourne Football Club with 9 teams including 4 senior males, 2 senior females, 1 masters males, 1 super rules males, 1 youth female. The grounds are at full capacity, with the club requiring a range of overflow venues including JP Cam Reserve (Cranbourne) and grounds in Narre Warren and Berwick.

» Carlisle Park - 2.4km (District Level Facility)

» 1 AFL/Cricket Synthetic Oval with pavilion, cricket nets, 2 netball courts.

» New facility that will cater for overflow AFL games during winter and the fixture for these games will organised by the South East Juniors Football Association (SEJ).

» Senior Cricket Lynbrook Vikings Cricket.

» Summer Season: home to the new Carlisle Park Cricket Club who started the 2015/16 year with 5 senior teams and 2 juniors. Within a month they had a further 3 teams (1 senior, 2 junior) and a Milo in2 Cricket. There has been an increase in the interest to have a further senior teams, master’s teams and Sunday competition teams next season which shows the catchment around the area to be reasonably successful. The West Gippsland Cricket Association also conducted a number of games this season as part of its development squads and interleague series which was met with a positive result and further fixtures to be added next year now the synthetic surface has been given the player tick of approval.

» Winter Season: Currently South East Juniors Association (SEJ) are the tenant with the plan

to fixture the ground for various home and away games in different age groups for all clubs within the Association varying from U9 to U17’s to ease the load on other grounds. In addition the SEJ Association are also using the ground to host the Youth Women’s League, the SEJ Development squads and several interleague matches planned between various regions of Melbourne.

» All Round Season Use: The following user groups are now at the facility throughout the year:

» SEJ Umpiring Association: Carlisle Park in now the training base for the entire SEJ

Umpires association, which is approximately 175-200 umpires who train at different times throughout the week.

» Narre South Lions Netball Club: One of the largest junior netball clubs in Casey which

accommodate 35 teams approximately 250 members.

» Berwick Springs Netball Club: 2nd largest netball club in Casey. This club have

approximately 40 teams and are using the netball facilities throughout the year for training purposes.

» South Eastern Netball Interleague: made up of a number of interleague teams which are using the courts for competitions and training.

Additional Information re Prioritisation and Alternative Options for Second Stage

The project is a short term priority (1-5 years) in the Leisure Facilities Development Plan to complement the new residential housing estate in Cranbourne East.

» Leisure Facilities Development Plan, 2014, identifies two projects for the Hunt Club Estate. The first is the development in the short term 1-5 years of an AFL/Cricket oval with a pavilion. Page 60 LFDP (Reference Document, 2014. Provided as a separate Attachment 7b).

» The second project is negotiating the access and use of the adjoining oval on school land to accommodate future growth and allow a club to operate from a two oval facility. Page 72 LFDP (Reference Document, 2014. Provided as a separate Attachment 7b).

Hierarchy Suburb Site / Reserve Recommendation Estimated Cost

Priority

Local Cranbourne East

Hunt Club Estate (Council land adjacent to Cranbourne East P-12 College Bradford Drive)

1 cricket oval synthetic wicket /football oval & pavilion

$2,100,000 S

Local Cranbourne East

Hunt Club (need to negotiate joint use access with school for the oval)

1 cricket oval (upgrade of oval to meet sporting requirements including synthetic wicket)

$955,500 M

Appendix 1 – Definition of Facilities.

Local Level Facilities will primarily cater for junior training and competition both summer and winter. Senior cricket could be considered at these venues as a satellite facility to a club’s main ground. Local sports facilities are generally built and maintained to a basic standard and typically include Council venues co-located with school sites, or development of joint-use facilities within school grounds.

District Level facilities will principally attract people from within Casey and will cater for senior and junior training and competition. District venues are usually the “headquarter” facility for clubs. District sports facilities will generally serve a catchment of approximately 10,000 households, or population of up to 30,000 people.

Regional sports facilities are likely to service a catchment which extends beyond the City of Casey municipal boundary due to their level of specialisation, uniqueness or standard of competition being played.

• Regional facilities will be built and maintained to a premier standard based on the needs of specific sports / activities. They will cater for training and competition for teams in elite level competitions and may have the capacity to host National standard fixtures.

Examples of existing sports facilities in Casey which would be considered Regional include the VFL ground at Casey Fields, the cricket centre at Casey Fields and the Sweeney Reserve Tennis Centre.

Planning for Casey's Community

16 December 2014 ITEM 4 LEISURE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY Richard Amon Council Plan Reference: 3.2

Purpose of Report: To present the draft Leisure Facilities Development Plan (LFDP) Policy for adoption.

Background Council adopted the original Leisure Facilities and Development Plan in 2009 (LFDP 2009). The LFDP 2009 provided Council with direction on the planning and development of facilities for a range of selected sports. The document has strong links to Council’s corporate and strategic documents such as the Casey C21 – Building a Great City vision and the Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013-17). The document has been extremely successful in its implementation providing a framework to guide facility provision and standards, upgrades and renewals, inform Council’s capital works program and to respond to club and community requests. The LFDP 2009 featured a Sports Facilities Plan and a Sports Development Plan and was recognised in the industry as an innovative and comprehensive planning tool. In particular, it won the Parks and Leisure Australia National Award for Planning Excellence and also the VicSport Best Sports Development Initiative. It has guided the development of Casey’s sporting facilities which are highly regarded within the sport and leisure industry. However, the LFDP 2009 was based on an expected population of 317,000 people. In recent years there have been substantial changes to the designated urban growth boundary resulting in a revised expected population of 459,000 people and the development of new residential development areas. A formal review of the LFDP 2009 was undertaken with the aim of updating the sport facility needs for Casey’s larger ultimate population. The review was also an opportunity to assess what has worked and what could be improved in relation to facility standards, facility/sport hierarchies, provision ratios and direction for future land purchases. Since the LFDP 2009, Council’s policy framework has altered and there are now two distinct documents related to the review as follows:

• Leisure Facilities Development Plan Policy (the Policy – Attachment 1): Documents council’s policy position relating to the development of sporting facilities including a number of principles, provision ratios and recommended facility standards.

• LFDP 2014: A reference document to the Policy which provides officers with detailed directions and recommendations to guide the implementation of the policy.

The Policy covers the Sports Facilities Plan component of the LFDP 2009 while a separate review is currently in progress for the Sports Development Plan component (which will be titled the Sports Development and Physical Activity Plan). The Policy and LFDP 2014 have been prepared by Insight Leisure, a leisure consultancy planning firm. Insight Leisure undertook extensive consultation with State and Local sporting associations, local sporting clubs, the broader Casey community, various Council departments and other LGAs to inform the final document.

Council Meeting Page 17


16 December 2014 ITEM 4

At its meeting on 5 August 2014, Council resolved:

That Council approve for the Leisure Facilities Development Plan Policy and Leisure Facilities Development Plan 2014 documents to be placed on exhibition for public and stakeholder comment.

It should be noted that the Policy is a higher level strategic document that focuses on facility provision ratios, facility standards and hierarchies. The LFDP 2014 is an operational document that will inform Council’s future priorities and works across all sports into the future. This report seeks for Council to formally adopt the Policy whereas the LFDP 2014 will be utilised as an operational document by officers. Consultation The draft Policy and LFDP 2014 were placed on public exhibition for comment from 20 August 2014 to 17 September 2014. The public exhibition process included: • Electronic version of the document on the City of Casey’s website inviting public

comment. • Email to VicSport, state and local sporting associations and Casey’s sporting clubs with

a link to the website inviting their comment. • Promotion of the exhibition period via the Casey sports club newsletter. • A press release notifying that the draft policy was on exhibition. 22 submissions were received in total during the public exhibition period. Attachment 2 includes a summary of the submissions received and any changes made to the LFDP 2014. Generally, the submissions were supportive of the document. There were a number of requests for upgrades to existing facilities which were outside the scope of the Policy but will be considered as part of future audits against the facility provision standards and hierarchies. VicSport is the industry representative for the sport and active recreation sector in Victoria, representing over 170 member groups. Its submission supported all areas of the LFDP 2014 and commended Council on the clear framework for the new and upgraded facilities; multi-sport facility use; proposed joint use arrangements with schools; and the continued emphasis on facility planning, sport development and sport policy. The support from VicSport further emphasises Council’s leading approach to future infrastructure planning for sport across the City. Changes to the Policy The following changes were made to the Policy as a result of feedback received during the public exhibition period.




Gymnastics Changes were made to the gymnastics facility hierarchy standards based on Gymnastics Victoria facility guidelines.

• Inclusion of a regional level standard to cater for the pathways for gymnastic

competition and training. Inclusion of a regional level standard to cater for the pathways for gymnastic competition and training. The creation of a regional level does not require an additional facility development instead it is recommended that the proposed municipal gymnastics facility proposed at Casey Central be raised in standard to meet the requirement for a regional level gymnastics facility.

• Specific floor area sizes have been nominated for each level of the sport facility hierarchy for gymnastics.

• Increase in the level of detail on the facility components to be provided at each hierarchy level for gymnastics.

AFL Provision ratios for ovals per 1,000 population have been revised slightly from 1 oval per 4,000 residents to 1 oval per 4,250 residents. This modification brings Council’s provision ratio in line with AFL Victoria’s participation forecasts for the City of Casey. The change in provision ratio has decreased the number of ovals required for the City’s expected ultimate population (of 450,000) for AFL from 112 to 105. Changes to the LFDP 2014 (Reference Document) The following table outlines any changes that were made to the LFDP 2014 reference document as a result of feedback received during the public exhibition period.

Sport Changes to the LFDP 2014

Cricket

One additional joint use cricket oval is proposed on Department of Education and Early Childhood land to meet the facility provisions as a result of a loss of one proposed oval at Kimberly Downs Reserve in Narre Warren South. Kimberly Downs Reserve is now proposed to accommodate six tennis courts (as was originally proposed in the LFDP 2009 document). This is due to a further assessment of the land size and its ability to accommodate soccer / cricket.

Hockey

The replacement of the synthetic surface hockey pitch at Berwick Secondary College is recommend to occur in the short term (0-5 years) rather than medium term (6-10 years) due to the condition and suitability of the surface for higher competition use.

Rugby Union

Recommended financial contribution from Council towards the upgrade of Hallam Secondary College’s rugby field as a medium term priority, subject to the renewal of the joint use agreement between Council and the College.




Sport Changes to the LFDP 2014

Soccer

Due to land size required, the proposed 2 soccer field development at Kimberley Downs Reserve has been relocated to a proposed expansion of the Narre Warren North Reserve. Recommended increase in the size of pavilions at 3 field soccer developments (ie increase from 4 to 6 change rooms) to allow matches to occur simultaneously on all fields (similar to AFL pavilion provision).

Tennis

Recommendation for Kimberley Downs Reserve to accommodate a 6 court tennis development To meet the recommended provision ratio for the City’s ultimate population a proposed future 6 court development has been removed from the Clyde Growth area.

Cost and Implementation To meet the facility provision ratios as proposed in the Policy, the LFDP 2014 estimates that $446.8 million of infrastructure (excluding land purchase costs) is required to be provided over a 20 year timeframe. These works are prioritised based on short (1-5 years), medium (6-10 years) and long term (11-20 years) timeframes with funding to be derived largely through a mix of rates, grants and developer contributions. Note that the total figure has increased to $446.8 million (from $442.5 million) listed in the draft LFDP 2014 as a result of the changes made to the document in response to feedback received during the public exhibition period. This change reflects an increase in the number of change rooms provided for 3 soccer field developments and the introduction of a regional level standard gymnastics facility which requires a larger building size than a municipal level facility. The implementation of the LFDP 2014 will be driven by officers who will undertake a number of tasks including the following: • Develop annual project nominations to be considered in Council’s Capital Works

Program. • Conduct audits to facility standards and conditions to inform future upgrades and

renewals. • Apply for Federal and State grants (and any other opportunities) to offset Council’s

contributions to facility development costs. • Utilise development contribution funds to contribute to the development of new facilities

in the growth areas. • Advocate to the Metropolitan Planning Authority for open space to be provided to meet

the facility provision ratios within the Policy. Officer Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters for consideration.




Conclusion Council exhibited its Draft Leisure Facilities Development Plan Policy and Reference document to the public for comment from 20 August 2014 to 17 September 2014. 22 submissions were received with many of the comments generally supportive of the document’s approach. Some changes were made to the Policy and Reference documents based on the feedback. The feedback included a strong endorsement from VicSport, the sport and active recreation representative body in Victoria, for the document and its approach to forward strategic planning for sporting infrastructure. Council recommends that the Policy be adopted (with the LFDP 2014 Reference document to be used by officers to guide operational decisions and assessments).

Recommendation That Council adopt the Leisure Facilities Development Plan Policy superseding the Leisure Facilities Development Plan 2009.




ATTACHMENT 1

Leisure Facilities Development Plan Policy


Leisure Facilities Development Plan Policy

Version: Draft

Date updated: Adopted Day Month Year

Responsible Department: Sport & Leisure

1. Purpose

This document details Council’s commitment to ensuring a varied, equitable and consistent approach to the development of new and existing sporting facilities.

2. Definitions

Council means Casey City Council, being a body corporate constituted as a municipal Council under the Local Government Act 1989

Councillors means the individuals holding the office of a member of Casey City Council

Council officer means the Chief Executive Officer and staff of Council appointed by the Chief Executive Officer.

Leisure Facilities and Development Plan (LFDP)

the document adopted by Council in 2009 which guides the future planning, provision and development of sporting facilities throughout the City of Casey.

LFDP 2014 replaces the previous LFDP. The document assessed what has worked well, what could be improved and revised the recommendations based on a contemporary assessment of sporting facility needs and Casey’s expected ultimate population of 450,000. This document will be the reference document, which will provide officers with direction and recommendations to guide the implementation of the LFDP Policy.

Council policy documents change from time to time and it is recommended that you consult the electronic reference copy at www.casey.vic.gov.au/policiesstrategies to ensure that you have the current version. Alternatively you may contact Customer Service on 9705 5200.

Leisure Facilities Development plan (LFDP) Policy (DRAFT) Page 2 of 30

3. Scope

To define a more manageable scope, the plan focuses on 17 identified sports. The sports were selected largely based on the highest organised sport participation levels nationally and in Victoria for both adults and children. Consideration was also given to the City of Casey’s demographics and participation trends. The sports are: Australian Rules Football Cricket Hockey Softball Tennis Basketball Lawn Bowls Table Tennis Soccer (and Futsal) Athletics Baseball Martial Arts Rugby League & Union Netball Gymnastics Badminton The selected sports are generally consistent with the 2009 LFDP aside from the inclusion of Table Tennis, Martial Arts, Badminton and exclusion of BMX and Gridiron.

4. Context

The City currently provides and/or facilitates access to a range of sport, recreation and leisure opportunities across the municipality. These add to the culture, lifestyle and character of the region as well as enhance the liveability of the City. Hence sport, recreation and open space (e.g. parks and reserves) form an integral part of the City and are recognised as an important part of a well-balanced lifestyle. The benefits associated with participating in sport and physical activity include personal enjoyment, social interaction, physical and mental health, personal achievement, community involvement (‘social capital’), community resilience and opportunities for expression of community pride. Participation in a broad range of leisure activities has the potential to improve physiological and mental health, contribute to personal development, improve well-being and assist in social learning (e.g. tolerance, respect, cooperation and leadership). In response to Council’s commitment to community sport the Leisure Facilities and Development Plan (LFDP), which guides the future planning, provision and development of sporting facilities throughout the City of Casey, was adopted in 2009. A detailed review of the LFDP was completed in 2014 to assess what has worked well, what could be improved and revised recommendations based on a contemporary assessment of sporting facility needs and Casey’s expected ultimate population of 450,000. LFDP 2014 recommends that Council’s role in sport and recreation provision will vary depending on the issue/s being addressed and sit within one of the following four categories: Plan: Facilitate planning, development and renewal of leisure facilities, services and opportunities to address identified (current and future) community needs. Provide: Support the provision of leisure facilities, services and programs to meet the needs of the current and future community.


Partner: Work in partnership with Government (State, Federal and Local e.g. neighbouring LGA’s), schools, clubs, State Sporting Associations, Leagues / Associations and community groups to ensure that leisure facilities, programs and services meet the needs of the current and future community. Advocate & Inform: Advocate to other levels of Government and relevant stakeholders regarding issues and opportunities that are likely to impact on sport, recreation and leisure facilities or services in the City of Casey. Provide information to the community regarding the range of leisure opportunities available to residents, including promotion of the health and wellbeing benefits of physical activity participation.

5. Policy

Based on the learnings and success of the LFDP, the following principles will guide the future planning and development of sports facilities in Casey: • Provide a sufficient number and range of sport facilities to cater for demand in

line with the recommended facility provision ratios. See Appendix One for the facility provision ratios for each sport. • Provide an appropriate hierarchy of sports facility types and standards that

support a diverse range of sports participation opportunities and athlete pathway development (i.e. Regional, Municipal, District and Local facilities).

See Appendix Two for the recommended facility standards for each level within the overall hierarchy of provision. • Where appropriate, develop multi-sport facilities and recreation areas at the one

location (i.e. recreation precincts/hubs) rather than developing single-use or stand-alone facilities.

• Maximise opportunities for shared-use of sport facilities by clubs, community

groups, and individuals (e.g. as venues for meetings and social functions, and for informal recreation/sporting activity).

• Incorporate sustainable water management and environmentally sustainable

design practices into new recreation reserves and sports pavilions. • Incorporate the principles of Universal Design to maximise access and inclusion

for all sectors of the community in the development of sport and recreation facilities and infrastructure.

• Maximise opportunities for broader community use of recreation reserves (sports grounds and sports fields) by incorporating passive leisure facilities.

• Where appropriate, incorporate non-sporting recreation spaces, such as

playgrounds and BBQ / picnic areas, within broad-acre sports grounds and sports fields.

• Facilitate appropriate partnerships with government agencies, schools, clubs or

groups in order to help fund and manage selected sporting facilities to meet overall demand.


• Where practical, locate and integrate sports reserves within broader open space

networks and linear open space corridors to improve their appeal, functionality, usage flexibility and ease of access (including active transport).

6. Administrative Updates

It is recognised that, from time to time, circumstances may change leading to the need for minor administrative changes to this document. Where an update does not materially alter this document, such a change may be made administratively. Examples include a change to the name of a Council department, a change to the name of a Federal or State Government department, and a minor update to legislation which does not have a material impact. However, any change or update which materially alters this document must be by resolution of Council.

7. Review

The next biennial review of this document is scheduled for completion by Day Month Year.


APPENDIX 1

Provision Ratios

Ratios have been developed for these sports/activities based on an assessment of the adequacy of existing provision (i.e. actual facility ratio's within Casey), consultation results, demand assessment and industry research, including participation trends.

The table below summarises the ratio's used in the LFDP 2014 to service a population of 450,000.

Sport / Activity

Ratio

Athletics 1:75,000

AFL 1:4,250

Badminton 24 courts =12 dedicated + 12 non dedicated courts

Baseball 1:50,000

Basketball 1:8,000

Cricket 1:3,000

Football (Soccer) 1:4,500

Gymnastics 7 facilities = 3 dedicated + 4 pack up sites

Hockey 1:90,000

Lawn Bowls 1:15,000

Martial Arts To be considered as part of future leisure and community centres.

Netball - Indoor 1:5,000

Netball - Outdoor 1:5,000

Rugby League 1:62,500

Rugby Union 1:62,500

Softball 1:37,500

Table Tennis 12 dedicated courts

Tennis 1:2,300


APPENDIX 2 Hierarchy of Sport Facilities The City of Casey Hierarchy of Sport Facilities is:

Local Facilities: Local level sports facilities primarily cater for junior training and competition both summer and winter. Senior cricket could be considered at these venues as a satellite facility to a club’s main ground. Local sports facilities are generally built and maintained to a basic standard and typically include Council venues co-located with school sites, or development of joint-use facilities within school grounds. • Examples of existing sports facilities in Casey that would be considered Local include the

southern ground at Waratah Reserve, Junction Village, Banjo Patterson and joint-use school ovals (commonly used for cricket).

District Facilities: District level facilities will principally attract people from within Casey and will cater for senior and junior training and competition. District venues are usually the “headquarter” facility for clubs. District sports facilities will generally serve a catchment of approximately 10,000 households, or population of up to 30,000 people. • Examples of existing sports facilities in Casey that would be considered District, include

Narre Warren North Reserve, Reema Reserve (soccer), Narre Warren Bowls Club, and the Pearcedale Tennis Club.

Municipal Facilities: Municipal facilities will generally service a City-wide catchment (or large parts thereof) due to their level of speciality, uniqueness or standard of competition being played. Municipal facilities will principally be used by clubs based within the City; however they may also cater for those clubs affiliated with Melbourne-wide competitions, or associations/leagues. • Municipal facility provision will generally be to a higher standard than is available at Local

or District venues in order to accommodate a higher level of competition or activity. • Examples of existing sports facilities in Casey that would be considered Municipal,

include the Olive Road Reserve Netball, Endeavour Hills Leisure Centre Gymnastics and Casey Fields Rugby League. (Note: that for many sports a ‘Municipal’ level of facility has not been prescribed).

Regional Facilities: Regional sports facilities are likely to service a catchment which extends beyond the City of Casey municipal boundary due to their level of specialisation, uniqueness or standard of competition being played. • Regional facilities will be built and maintained to a premier standard based on the needs

of specific sports / activities. They will cater for training and competition for teams in elite level competitions and may have the capacity to host National standard fixtures.

• Examples of existing sports facilities in Casey which would be considered Regional, include the VFL ground at Casey Fields, the cricket centre at Casey Fields and the Sweeney Reserve Tennis Centre.


Sport Facility Hierarchy Standards

Based on the Hierarchy of Sports Facilities the following tables outline the facility standards and infrastructure requirements for each level within each sport. Athletics

Facility Component Local District Municipal Regional

Playing Areas

Track Surface Temporary grass track overlaid onto an oval, not a permanent facility

Permanent synthetic track – 400m circumference with minimum 6 lanes

Permanent synthetic track of 400m circumference with minimum 8 lanes, and 10 straight lanes for 100m and 110m hurdles events. (Construction in accordance with guidelines as outlined in IAAF Track and Field Facilities Manual)

Long / Triple Jump Facility

Temporary runway into a sand landing pit

Permanent runway(s) into a sand landing pit

Permanent runway(s) with a sand landing pit at each end

High Jump Facility Temporary high jump area

Permanent high jump area

Permanent semi-circular runway and take-off area

Pole Vault Facility Permanent runway and box for inserting the pole

Combined Discus & Hammer Facility

Temporary throwing circles

Permanent discus circle (2.5m diameter) and hammer circle (2.135m), and where infield is dedicated to field events a permanent combined throwing cage. Where infield is used for other sports/events temporary throwing cage

Permanent discus circle (2.5m diameter) and hammer circle (2.135m) within a permanent combined throwing cage

Javelin Facility Temporary runway Permanent javelin runway where infield is dedicated to field events, but temporary runway where infield is used for other sports/events

Permanent javelin runway

Shot Put Facility Permanent shot put circle (2.135m), temporary landing sector

Permanent shot put circle(s) (2.135m) and landing sector(s)

Permanent shot put circle(s) (2.135m) and landing sector(s)

Steeplechase Water Jump

Water jump is permanently installed (3.66m x 3.66m x 0.70m deep) inside or outside the track

Infield Automated irrigation and basic drainage system (based on technical design requirements).

Infrastructure

Spectator Area Incorporate accessible seating options in any 'grandstands'.

Some fixed seating around the track (includes park furniture)

Tiered fixed seating to cater for a minimum of 300 spectators, supplemented by terracing and/or embankments around at least half the track

Shade Shade sails (or equivalent) for the spectator areas along the front straight

Flood Lighting Training standard Competition standard



Lighting to comply to Australian Standard 2560 Series

Track / Reserve Fencing

Perimeter fence around track, no fencing around facility.

Perimeter fence around track and around facility for ticketing.

Car Parking Accessible parking provided at all levels

Access to off-street or on-street (approx. 30 spaces minimum)

Off-street for minimum 70 cars

Combination of sealed and/or unsealed off-street parking for minimum 200 cars Provision for bus parking

Electronic Timing Equipment

Advanced timing and judging equipment


Australian Football and Cricket


Playing Surface

No. of Ovals One stand alone oval in Council reserves with no support facilities, or located within school grounds

Minimum 2 ovals (for all new oval developments only)

3 synthetic oval site.

Cricket: Minimum 2 ovals AFL: 1 high level grass oval

OR

3 synthetic ovals.

Size (playing area) All new ovals should attempt to achieve a 5m buffer from the boundary fencing or any barriers.

Football: Min. 110m x 135m

(NB: playing surface to cater for Senior AFL and all levels of Junior Cricket – required radius of 55m)

(Boundary of 5m required =120m x 145m)

Football: Preferred playing surface 135m x 165m

(Boundary of 5m required = 145m x 175m)

Minimum playing surface 130m x 155m

Plus 5m boundary. (NB: playing surface to cater for Senior AFL and provide a minimum 65m radius for Senior Cricket)


(Boundary of 5m required = 145m x 175m). (NB: playing surface to cater for Senior AFL and provide a minimum 65m radius for Senior Cricket)


(Boundary of 5m required = 145m x 175m). (NB: playing surface to cater for Senior AFL and provide a minimum 65m radius for Senior Cricket)

Irrigation Requirements for automated irrigation

considered on a case by case basis.

Automated irrigation system

Automated irrigation system

Sub-surface drainage

Basic drainage system (subject to detailed design)

Comprehensive drainage system (subject to detailed design)

Maintenance Mowing, with fertilising, aerating and top dressing on an as needs basis

Mowing, with fertilising, aerating and top dressing on an as needs basis

Mowing, with annual fertilising, aerating and top dressing

Infrastructure


Some fixed seating around the ground (includes park furniture)

Tiered fixed seating to cater for a minimum of 200 – 400 spectators (excludes cricket only ovals)

Flood Lighting (Football only) Lighting to comply to Australian Standard 2560 Series

Full ground training standard lighting may be considered on a case by

case basis.

All ovals to training standard , full ground provision.

Single high level oval: Competition standard lighting.

3 synthetic oval site: Training standard on all ovals.

Oval Fencing Fencing for ovals hosting senior Australian football matches to have chain-mesh in-fill, or equivalent

Reserve Fencing Council to assess on a case by case basis having regard to safety, management and operational requirements. Full perimeter reserve fencing is generally not preferred.

Car Parking Off-street or on-street Off-street defined Defined (and sealed) off-street parking for



Accessible parking provided at all levels

(combined approx. 50 cars)

parking for minimum 75 cars, with additional capacity for on-street overflow parking for minimum of 35 vehicles.

minimum 200 cars.

Scoreboard Fixed, permanent and electronic

Coach / Interchange Shelter

2 fixed shelters

4.8m long x 1.2m wide (Accommodate 8 people)

(NB: Not required at school sites)

3 fixed shelters

4.8m long x 1.2m wide (Accommodate 8 people)

3 fixed shelters

6m long x 1.2m wide (Accommodate 10 people)

Cricket Only

Turf Table Only on ovals where it is a requirement by the affiliate association, minimum 4 pitches on table

Up to 10 pitches on the turf table

Synthetic Cricket Pitch

Applicable for Local and District ovals. Recommended specifications for the concrete slab and synthetic surface are 28m x 3.4m which allow for sealed bowler’s run-up and wicketkeeper areas.

Incorporate a synthetic grass apron around the pitch approx. 2.1m either side of the pitch and 5m beyond each end.

Turf Practice Wicket Minimum 6 pitches

Synthetic Practice Nets

Minimum 1 net on Council-owned sites where there will be a local recreation benefit

Minimum 3 nets

(NB: Design should incorporate full synthetic surfaces to pitch, run-ups and adjacent areas and avoid loose gravel or dirt surfaces within the enclosed net facility).

Minimum 4 nets

(NB: Design should incorporate full synthetic surfaces to pitch run-ups and adjacent areas and avoid loose gravel or dirt surfaces within the enclosed net facility).

Note: Synthetic surfaced ovals are not proposed as home ground venues for single clubs.


Baseball and Softball


Playing Field

No. of Fields Baseball: 1 - 2 fields of senior dimensions with no overlap Softball: 1- 2 fields of senior dimensions with no overlap

Baseball: Minimum 2 fields of senior dimensions with no overlap Softball: Minimum 2 fields of senior dimensions with no overlap

Baseball: Minimum 4 fields of senior dimensions with no overlap Softball: Minimum 4 fields of senior dimensions with no overlap

Outfield Baseball & Softball: Grass surface.

Baseball & Softball: Grass surface with automated irrigation and basic drainage

Baseball & Softball: Grass surface with automated irrigation and basic drainage

Infield Baseball & Softball: Combination of clay/sand/dirt 'skinned' in-field areas between bases.

Baseball & Softball: Combination of clay/sand/dirt 'skinned' in-field areas between bases.

Baseball & Softball: Combination of clay/sand/dirt 'skinned' in-field areas between bases.

Back Net Baseball & Softball: Back net for each field

Baseball & Softball: Permanent back net for minimum two fields

Baseball & Softball: Permanent back net for all fields

Infrastructure

Home Run Fence Generally line marking only.

Baseball: Consider site specific options, e.g. may be a temporary home run fence, or line marking, or incorporated into overall reserve/field fencing.

Baseball: Consider site specific options, e.g. may be a temporary home run fence, or line marking, or incorporated into overall reserve/field fencing.

Player Dugouts Baseball & Softball: Player benches, seating to be provided.

Baseball & Softball: Permanent player dug-outs for minimum two fields

Baseball & Softball: Permanent player dug-outs for minimum all fields


Baseball & Softball: Some fixed seating around the main field (includes park furniture)



Flood Lighting Optional Installation of training standard lighting, including to batting cage, in accordance with Australian Standards, series AS 2560.

Installation of match standard lighting, including to batting cage, in accordance with Australian Standards, series AS 2560.

Field Fencing Perimeter fence around outfield area to prevent unauthorised vehicle access

Perimeter fence around outfield area to prevent unauthorised vehicle access

Perimeter fence around outfield area to prevent unauthorised vehicle access

Reserve Fencing Council to assess on a case by case basis having regard to safety, management and operational requirements. Full perimeter reserve fencing is generally

Council to assess on a case by case basis having regard to safety, management and operational requirements. Full perimeter reserve fencing is generally

Council to assess on a case by case basis having regard to safety, management and operational requirements. Full perimeter reserve fencing is generally not preferred.



not preferred. not preferred.

Car Parking Accessible parking to be provided

Baseball & Softball: Access to off-street parking for minimum 30 cars (sealed or unsealed)



Scoreboard Optional. Permanent manual scoreboard to be installed (basic standard).

Permanent manual scoreboard to be installed for each field. Electronic scoreboard for the main field may be considered.

Batting cage Optional Incorporate an appropriate fenced space for pitching/batting cage and warm-up (refer to sport specific specifications).

Incorporate an appropriate fenced space for pitching/batting cage and warm-up (refer to sport specific specifications).


Gymnastics


Total Floor Area

Floor Area Minimum size of venue for training is a program space of 400m2

Minimum size of venue for training and basic competitions is a program space of 800m2

Provide 1500m2 to cater for both Women’s and Men’s Gymnastics for training and competition.

Floor Area Breakdown

Sprung Floor Permanent floor exercise area (12m x 10m)

Permanent floor exercise area (12m x 12m)

Program Space Limited capacity for program space within total floor area

Subject to feasibility assessment and program needs (eg. to cater for Rhythmic Gymnastics, Cheer-leading, Acrobatics and Tumbling competitions)

Trampoline Limited capacity for Trampolining within total floor area

Permanent trampolining provision to support basic trampolining (training) and gymnastics activities *

Permanent trampolining provision to competition requirements*

Foam Pit Permanent Permanent

Equipment No specific equipment types and number

Minimum one of pommel horse, Roman rings, parallel bars, vault, beam, and asymmetrical bars, installed in accordance with Gymnastic Australia regulations

Permanent setup facility with Elite level equipment. Minimum one of pommel horse, Roman rings, parallel bars, vault, beam, and asymmetrical bars, installed in accordance with Gymnastic Australia regulations

Infrastructure


Spectator circulation areas should be well clear of program space (gymnasts) and officials

Spectator circulation areas should be well clear of program space (gymnasts) and officials

Retractable elevated seating with capacity for (minimum) 170.

Roof Height Minimum 7m for club activities

Minimum 8m for training and basic competitions

Minimum 12m for training and high standard competitions (including cheerleading and rhythmic gymnastics)

Storage Size of storage area will be determined by the space required to pack away equipment

*Provision for trampolining will be subject to a feasibility assessment and pathway requirements of the sport. Gymnastics Victoria’s Facility Standards will be consulted once finalised.


Hockey


Playing Surface

No. of Fields One Two fields

Field Surface Synthetic turf playing surface of dimensions 91.44m x 55.00m, plus side run-off minimum 3.0m and end run-off minimum 4.5m Synthetic turf playing surface of dimensions 91.44m x 55.00m, plus side run-off minimum 3.0m and end run-off minimum 4.5m

Infrastructure


Seating for 20 provided as part of the clubroom facility, and by agreement with school (or other joint-venture partner).

Seating for minimum 50 people to be provided.

Flood Lighting Lighting to comply to Australian Standard 2560 Series

Competition standard (250 Lux)

Field / Reserve Fencing

Perimeter in-fill fence around entire playing surface to prevent unauthorised vehicle access and enhance spectator safety, no reserve fencing

Perimeter in-fill fence around entire playing surface to prevent unauthorised vehicle access and enhance spectator safety, consider facility fencing for match ticketing.


Un/sealed off-street parking for minimum 50 cars

Un/sealed off-street parking for minimum 75 cars, access to additional on-street or overflow parking desirable.

Scoreboard Fixed and permanent


2 fixed shelters (each with 6 seat capacity)


Lawn Bowls


Playing Surface

No. of Greens Minimum 2 greens, with capacity for a future third green

Minimum of 3 greens (with at least one under-cover).

Playing Surface Natural turf or synthetic turf with playing surface dimensions of between 37-40m x 37-40m

Natural turf or synthetic turf with playing surface dimensions of between 37-40m x 37-40m

Irrigation Automated irrigation system (required for natural turf and synthetic surfaces)

Automated irrigation system (required for natural turf and synthetic surfaces)


Comprehensive drainage system


Infrastructure


Lighting to at least one green provided by Council for all new facilities (100 Lux)

Lighting on at least one green (100 Lux).

Reserve Fencing Reserve fence to enhance security and reduce vandalism

Reserve fence to enhance security and reduce vandalism

Player Shelter Permanent shade structures with seating around the greens (minimum 1 shelter per 3 rinks)

Permanent shade structures with seating around the greens (minimum 1 shelter per 3 rinks)


Sealed off-street parking for minimum 25 cars per green, and some on-street parking for overflow

Sealed off-street parking for minimum 25 cars per green, and some on-street parking for overflow

Scoring Stands One set for each green One set for each green


Outdoor Netball

Facility Component District Municipal Regional

Playing Surface

No. of Courts 2 courts Number determined in conjunction with the association, but typically minimum of 6 courts

Number determined in conjunction with the association, but typically minimum of 8 courts

Playing Surface Hard surface (options asphalt or syn-pave)

Combination of access to indoor and outdoor courts. Hard surface (options asphalt, acrylic or rubberised acrylic surface)

Infrastructure


Fixed seating around the court environs for spectators (includes park furniture).

Fixed seating around the court environs for spectators (includes park furniture). Inclusion of an indoor show-court, with seating capacity of (minimum) 250.


Training standard on both courts (100 Lux)

Competition standard on all courts (200 Lux)

Court Fencing Council to assess on a case by case basis, however, as a basic principle courts located within reserves would not have perimeter fencing, except where it might be necessary to enhance player and spectator safety

Reserve Fencing As above

Player Shelter 1 shelter for each court 10m x 1.2m


Off-street parking for minimum 25 cars



Scoreboard Not required. Permanent manual scoreboard for the main/show court only. .


Rugby (League/Union)

Sports Facility Local District Municipal Regional

Playing Surface

No. of Fields 1-2 fields Minimum 2 fields (dedicated fields)

Minimum 2-3 fields (dedicated fields)

Irrigation Automated irrigation system


Basic drainage system Comprehensive drainage system

Maintenance Mowing, with fertilising, aerating and top dressing on an as needs basis


Infrastructure


Some fixed seating around the field (includes park furniture)

Fixed seating around the fields, supplemented by terracing and/or embankments along at least one half of the main field


Training standard (100 Lux) Training standard (100 Lux) to be provided by Council with capacity for future match standard (200 Lux) subject to club/external funding.

Field Fencing Perimeter fence around main field

Reserve Fencing Council to assess on a case by case basis, however, as a basic principle reserve fencing should only be considered where there is a safety issue




Off-street parking for minimum 75 cars, with access to additional or overflow parking (e.g. #50 cars on street).

Scoreboard Fixed and permanent on main field


2 fixed shelters on main field (each with a 6 seat capacity)

Minimum 2 fixed shelters on main field (each with a 8 seat capacity)


Football (Soccer)

Sports Facility Local District Municipal Regional

FFV Equivalent Venue Standard Class D Class C Class B Class A

Playing Surface

No. of Fields Stand alone in Council reserves with no support facilities, or located within school grounds

Minimum 3 fields (for all new facility developments only) with consideration of possible synthetic surfaces

Minimum 3 fields (for all new facility developments only) with consideration of possible synthetic surfaces

Minimum of 4 fields, with consideration of possible synthetic surfaces

Irrigation Automated irrigation system


Basic drainage system


Maintenance Mowing only (at schools only if a joint-use agreement exists)

Mowing, with fertilising, aerating and top dressing on an as needs basis


Synthetic Surface Full synthetic playing surfaces can be considered where required to cater for expected high usage loads.

Infrastructure


Fixed seating around the field (includes park furniture)

For main field covered, terraced spectator area to cater for a minimum of 200 – 400 spectators


Training standard lighting (100 Lux) two fields and for any synthetic field/s.

Competition standard (200 Lux) for main field, with training standard for all other fields (100 Lux).

Field Fencing Powder coated chain mesh fence around the main field/s (unless shared with cricket or other uses).

Training fields may be unfenced.

Incorporate safety screen/fencing behind goals (e.g. 2.5m high x 5m wide).

Powder coated chain mesh fence around the main field/s and fencing to separate players/referees races from spectators.

Incorporate safety screen/fencing behind goals (e.g. 2.5m high x 5m wide).

Reserve Fencing Council to assess on a case by case basis, however, as a basic principle reserve fencing should only be considered where senior competition is played, or there is a safety issue

Main field and associated player and spectator facilities to be fenced


Combination of off-street or on-street parking (minimum 30 spaces)

Combination of off-street parking for minimum 75 cars, with additional parking for 30 cars on or off-street

Off-street parking for minimum 200 cars.

Scoreboard Not required Fixed and permanent on main field Fixed and permanent on main field (consideration may be given to electronic) and 2nd field


2 fixed shelters per field (each with a 6 seat capacity)

2 fixed shelters per field (each with a 8 seat capacity)

Note: Synthetic surfaced fields are not proposed as home ground venues for single clubs.


Tennis

Sports Facility District Municipal Regional

Playing Surface

No. of Courts 6 to 8 courts (where space permits)

8 to 12 courts Minimum 12 courts

Playing Surface Optional for existing courts, but for new installations synthetic (including clay) or hard court surface.

Synthetic (including clay) or hard court surface.

Infrastructure


Competition standard on all courts (350 Lux).

Facility Fencing At all levels, each court is fenced (for new and upgraded fencing use 3.5m black PVC coated chain-mesh fencing)






Pavilions and Clubrooms. The following tables provide a summary of the recommended sizes for specific components of pavilions and clubrooms, which would be suitable for the selected sports for this study. The recommended sizes are based on a review of relevant building code requirements and comparison to existing industry standards, including State and local Sporting Association recommendations. Spatial allowances for ancillary areas such as pedestrian circulation, service areas, foyer, etc. would be additional to the areas identified in the tables (including circulation space around the outside of the building envelope).

The City of Casey is committed to developing facilities that are inclusive to all members of the community. The principles of Universal Design, such as equitable and flexible use to ensure maximum benefit for both genders, will be considered and applied in all future facility developments.

Due to the inherent differences in pavilion / clubrooms for the different sports included in this study, five tables have been prepared:

1. Football and Cricket Pavilion.

2. Soccer Pavilion.

3. Other Field Sports Pavilion (e.g. baseball, hockey, rugby union/league and softball).

4. Netball Change.

5. Tennis and Lawn Bowls Clubrooms.

Please note: All pavilion allowances made are based on two change rooms catering for one playing field (football, cricket and soccer) per pavilion. Where there are two or more playing fields, Council will need to consider providing two additional changing rooms per playing field, to a maximum of six changing rooms.


Football and Cricket Pavilion (2 Change rooms)

Total Area: 168 m2 563m2 759m2

Facility Component Building Code Requirements

Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions (e.g. # of people) Local District Regional

Change Rooms (Home room includes First Aid area)

Not specific 40m2

102m2 Home: 57m2 Away: 45m2


Allows for 2 change rooms (1 home and 1 away) and up to 25 players changing at one time.

Showers & Toilets For each 10 participants: 2 pans, 1 basin and shower.

25m2



For each change room for 25 persons: 4 pans & 3 showers. Existing industry average sizes often do not meet contemporary user needs, e.g. desire for cubicle showers.

Umpires Room (includes showers and toilets)

1 pan and 1 shower 15m2 25m2 30m2 Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Public Toilets (includes accessible toilet)

Building code considers building users only, not spectator crowds. Baseline provision Male: 1 urinal, 1 pan and 1 basin. Female: 2 pans and 1basin Include accessible and ambulant toilets.

15m2

25m2

35m2

Number of public toilets will depend on an assessment of the average expected crowd and the number of ovals.

Kitchen Not specific 15m2 20m2

30m2 Kitchen/Kiosk facilities can be shared. Designs will require approval from Council’s Health Department.

Kiosk Not specific

Storage Not specific 10m2+ 20m2+ 20m2+ Will depend on the number of Home Teams sharing the facility. One internal and one externally-accessed storage area should be provided.

Timekeeping / Scorers

Not specific 12m2 15m2 Facility will need to provide a clear view of the playing field.

Office Not specific 15m2 20m2 One room per facility. Utility/Cleaners Room Not specific 5m2 5m2 Separate cleaners and utility (e.g. bin

store) space may be needed. Community space Not specific 120m2 200m2 Multi-purpose community meeting

space and social gathering area for players and spectators.

Drinks Servery Not specific 8m2 12m2 Note an additional secure store/utility area may be required if a bar is provided.

Subtotal 120m2 402m2 542m2 External Covered Viewing Area (Guide only)

Not specific 48m2 161m2 217m2 Will depend on an assessment of the average crowd; however as a guide the proposed space is based on 40% of the total internal pavilion area of a 2 change room pavilion.


Football and Cricket Pavilion (additional changing rooms)

Facility spatial requirements for additional change rooms


Not specific 102m2 116m2 (additional change rooms)


46m2 46m2 (additional showers/toilets)

Storage Not specific 20m2 20m2 (additional storage)

Umpires Room (includes showers and toilets)

1 pan and 1 shower 20m2 20m2

Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Total Additional Area Requirements 188m2 202m2 for each additional oval.

Summary of total facility spatial requirements:

Change Rooms Local District Regional / Municipal

2 168m2 563m2 759m2

4 N/A 751m2 961m2

6 N/A 939m2 1,163m2

Note: Additional Assumption/s:

• Change rooms are to cater for a single playing field. This represents one home team and one away team playing, plus one home team and one away team waiting (e.g. seniors and reserves at the same venue).

• The sizes above have been developed based on 25 participants for Australian Football getting changed and 12 participants for cricket changing at any one time. Therefore the overall size is based on Australian Football as this has the higher space requirement.

• Where there are multiple playing fields, it will be necessary to provide an additional set of change rooms, to a maximum of six changing rooms.

• Where turf wickets are to be provided, provision of a 'curators shed' / additional equipment storage will be required and should be factored into overall designs.

• If pavilion does not cater for Scorers additional structures may be required at venues that include electronic scoreboards.


Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions District Regional &

Municipal


Soccer Pavilion (2 Change rooms)

There is no pavilion provided for Local fields on Council grounds. Where there is sufficient demand and usage, a combination public toilet block and shelter will be provided.


Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions (e.g. # of people)

District Municipal Regional


Not specific 62m2 Home: 37m2 Away: 25m2




Showers & Toilets For each 10 participants: 2 pans, 1 basin and 1 shower.




For each change room for 15 persons: 2 pans & 2 showers.

Referees Room (includes showers and toilets)

1 pan and 1 shower 20m2 20m2 25m2 Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Public Toilets (includes Accessible)


25m2

35m2

45m2

Number of public toilets will depend on an assessment of the average expected crowd and the number of pitches.

Kitchen Not specific 20m2 25m2 30m2 Kitchen/Kiosk facilities can be shared. Designs will require approval from Council’s Health Department.

Kiosk Not specific

Storage Not specific 20m2+ 20m2+ 25m2+ Will depend on the number of home teams sharing the facility. For each team, one internal and one externally-accessed storage area should be provided.

Office Not specific 12m2 15m2 20m2 One room per facility. Utility/Cleaners Room

Not specific 5m2 5m2 5m2 Separate cleaners and utility (e.g. bin store) space may be needed.

Community space Not specific 100m2 120m2 160m2 Will depend on the anticipated crowds and number of teams.

Drinks Servery Not specific 8m2 10m2 15m2 Note an additional secure store/utility area may be required if a bar is provided.

Subtotal 308m2 348m2 437m2 External Covered Viewing Area. (Guide Only)

Not specific 123m2 139m2 175m2 Will depend on an assessment of the average crowd; however as a guide the proposed space is based on 40% of the total internal pavilion area of a 2 change room pavilion.

Total Area Provision 431m2 487m2 612m2


Soccer Pavilion (4 & 6 change rooms)

Facility spatial requirements for additional change rooms.


Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions

District Municipal Regional


Not specific 62m2 62m2 76m2 (additional change rooms)


36m2 36m2 36m2 (additional showers)

Storage Not specific 15m2 15m2 20m2 (additional storage)

Referees Room (includes showers and toilets)

1 pan and 1 shower

20m2 20m2 25m2 Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Total Additional Area Requirements 133m2 133m2 157m2 for each additional field.

Summary of total facility spatial requirements:

Change Rooms District Municipal Regional

2 431m2 487m2 612m2

4 564m2 620m2 769m2

6 697m2 753m2 926m2

Note: Additional Assumption/s: • Change rooms are to cater for a single playing field. This represents one home team

and one away team playing, plus one home team and one away team waiting (e.g. seniors and reserves at the same venue).

• Change rooms are sized for 15 people getting changed.

• Where there are multiple playing fields, it will be necessary to provide an additional set of change rooms, to a maximum of six changing rooms.


Other Field Sports Pavilion Baseball, hockey, rugby union/league and softball. 2 Change rooms


Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions Municipal &

District Regional (e.g. # of people)


Not specific 62m2 Home: 37m2 Away: 25m2



Showers & Toilets For each 10 participants: 2 pans, 1 basin and 1 shower.



For each change room for 17 persons: 2 pans & 2 showers.

Referees / Umpires Room (includes showers and toilets)

1 pan and 1 shower 20m2 20m2 Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Public Toilets (includes Accessible)


25m2

35m2

Number of public toilets will depend on an assessment of the average expected crowd and the number of sports fields.

Kitchen Not specific 20m2 25m2 Kitchen/Kiosk facilities can be shared. Designs will require approval from Council’s Health Department.

Kiosk Not specific

Storage Not specific 20m2+ 20m2+ One internal and one externally-accessed storage area should be provided.

Office Not specific 12m2 16m2 One room per facility. Utility/Cleaners Room

Not specific 5m2 5m2 Separate cleaners and utility (e.g. bin store) space may be needed.

Community space Not specific 80m2 120m2 Will depend on the anticipated crowds and number of teams.

Drinks Servery Not specific 8m2 8m2 Note an additional secure store/utility area may be required if a bar is provided.

Subtotal 288m2 381m2 External Covered Viewing Area

Not specific 115m2 152m2 Will depend on an assessment of the average crowd; however as a guide the proposed space is based on 40% of the total internal pavilion area of a 2 change room pavilion.

Total Area Provision 403m2 533m2


Other Field Sports Pavilion (4 Change rooms)

Facility spatial requirements for additional change rooms.


Recommended Size

Comments & Assumptions Municipal &

District Regional

Change Rooms

(Home room includes First Aid area)

Not specific 62m2 96m2 (additional change rooms)

Showers & Toilets For each 10 participants:

2 pans, 1 basin and shower.

36m2 36m2 (additional showers)

Storage Not specific 20m2 20m3 (additional storage)


1 pan and 1 shower 20m2 20m2 Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle

shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Total Additional Area Requirements 138m2 172m2

Change Rooms District Municipal Regional

2 403m2 403m2 533m2

4 541m2 541m2 705m2

Note: Additional Assumption/s: • Change rooms are to cater for a single playing field. This represents one home team

and one away team playing, plus one home team and one away team waiting (e.g. seniors and reserves at the same venue).

• Change rooms are sized for 17 people getting changed.

• Where there are multiple playing fields, it will be necessary to provide an additional set of change rooms.


Netball Change

Recommended sizes apply to facilities servicing outdoor courts.

There is no pavilion provided for Local courts on Council grounds, and where netball courts are provided on reserves to co-locate with District football clubs, it is assumed that some facility components (such as public toilets, kitchens and canteens, etc) will be provided within the reserve pavilion and should not be duplicated, therefore, they have not been shown here.


Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions

(e.g. # of people) District

Change Rooms Not specific 40m2 (2 x 20m2)


Showers & Toilets Not specific 36m2 (2 x 18m2)

For each team: 2 pans, 1 basin and 1 shower. Includes Accessible and ambulant toilets.

Storage Not specific 15m2 One internal and one externally-accessed storage area should be provided.


Not specific 20m2 Size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

External Covered Viewing Area

Not specific 44m2 Will depend on an assessment of the average crowd / peak crowds.

Total Building Envelope Area Pavilion “Footprint” 155m2

Note: Additional Assumption/s (Netball): • Change rooms are to cater for one home team and one away team playing, plus one

home team and one away team waiting (e.g. seniors and reserves at the same venue).

• Change rooms are sized for nine people getting changed.


Tennis and Lawn Bowls Clubroom

There is no pavilion provided for Local courts on Council grounds.


Recommended Size Comments & Assumptions (e.g. # of people)

District Regional

Change Rooms Not specific 20m2

Male: 10m2

Female: 10m2

30m2

Male: 15m2

Female: 15m2

Separate male and female areas. For lawn bowls, the allowance for change rooms increases proportional for each green

Showers & Toilets For each 10 participants: 1x pan, 1 basin and 1 shower. Includes Accessible and ambulant toilets.

16m2

Male: 8m2

Female: 8m2

36m2

Male: 18m2

Female: 18m2

District: Single cubicle shower and toilet for each change room. For lawn bowls, the allowance for showers & toilets increases proportional for each green Regional: Three shower cubicles and toilets for each change room.

Accessible Toilet (Includes a shower, and doubles as a family change room in tennis facilities)

Minimum 1 to be provided

8m2 8m2

Community space Not specific 80m2 (tennis)

100m2

(lawn bowls)

100m2 (tennis)

150m2

(lawn bowls)

Will depend upon the total number of courts / greens (which will influence anticipated membership numbers).

Drinks Servery Not specific 10m2 10m2 Will also depend upon the total number of courts/greens.

Kitchen / Servery Not specific 20m2 25m2 Kitchen and bar areas may combine. Designs will require approval from Council’s Health Department.

Storage Not specific 20m2+ 20m2+ Will need an assessment of the number of courts the facility services. One internal and one externally-accessed storage area should be provided.

Office Not specific 15m2 20m2 Utility/Cleaners Room Not specific 5m2 5m2 Separate cleaners and utility (e.g.

bin store) space may be needed. Subtotal 194m2 tennis

214m2 lawn

bowls

254m2 tennis

304m2 lawn bowls

External Covered Viewing Area

Not specific 78m2 tennis

86m2 lawn bowls

102m2 tennis

122m2 lawn bowls

Will depend on an assessment of the average crowd and peak crowds and number of courts at each venue.

Total Building Envelope Area “Core” Provision 272m2 356m2 (tennis)

300m2 426m2 (lawn bowls)


Indoor Stadia

The City of Casey Hierarchy of Indoor Stadium facilities is:

Local Facilities: • Local level stadiums are two to three basketball courts and ancillary sports. These

facilities primarily catering for training, however three court facilities could be used for competition purposes. Local level stadiums are generally built and maintained to a basic standard and typically are joint-use facilities within school grounds.

• Additional storage space to be provided for setup/dismantle gymnastic equipment. • Examples of existing local level stadiums in Casey are Timbarra School and Narre

Warren South P-12 College. Municipal Facilities: • Municipal facilities will generally service a City-wide catchment (or large parts thereof)

due to their level of speciality, uniqueness or standard of competition being played. Municipal facility provision will generally be to a higher standard than is available at Local level stadiums in order to accommodate a higher level of competition or activity.

• Municipal stadiums will consist of between four and six courts and ancillary sports. • Municipal gymnastics permanent setup facility. • Table Tennis 8-12 courts and elevated seating platform. • Badminton 8-12 courts and seating (up to 100 spectators) • An example of existing sports facilities in Casey that would be considered Municipal

would be the Olive Road Netball Stadium. Municipal stadiums are proposed for Monash University and Clyde Growth Area.

Regional Facilities: • Regional level stadiums are likely to service a catchment which extends beyond the City

of Casey municipal boundary due to their level of specialisation, uniqueness or standard of competition being played.

• Regional level stadiums will consist of between eight – ten courts and be built and maintained to a premier standard based on the needs of specific sports / activities (Netball will be a mix of indoor / outdoor courts). These facilities will cater for training and competition for teams in elite level competitions and may have the capacity to host State standard fixtures, therefore competition standard lighting and show court provision to be considered as part of each regional indoor stadium development.

The following table provides a guide on the recommended sizes for specific components of stadium developments. The recommended sizes are based on benchmarking of recently developed stadiums:


The following tables provide a summary of the recommended sizes for specific components for stadiums:

Facility Component Local Municipal Regional

Toilets / showers / change area

Basic training requirements

Training and competition. Dependent on number of courts and sport requirements.

High level for training, competition and show court. Dependent on number of courts and sport requirements.

Kiosk/Kitchen 2 Court: No 3 Court:20m2

28m2 To be based on operational requirements.

Storage 2 Court: 10m2 3 Court: 20m2

20m2 40m2+

Office 10m2 15 - 40m2to accommodate sport associations

40m2+

Utility/ cleaners room 10m2 15m2 15m2

Community space Up to 40m2 40 - 60m2 200m2

First Aid 10m2 Up to 20m2 20m2

Umpires/referees room 2 Court: No 3 Court: 20m2

20m2 20m2

Car parking Provided by the school

50 - 70 based on sport and spectator interest

Dependent on number of courts and sport requirements.

State sporting associations will be consulted with during the design phase to ensure courts/playing surface complies with the relevant standards.



ATTACHMENT 2

Summary of the Draft Report Feedback


Summary of draft report feedback The following table provides a summary of feedback received following public exhibition of the initial draft report, including key comments and resultant

changes to the final document.

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: 1 Resident

(location unknown) Disappointed that the LFDP does not consider

horse riding and equestrian activities. Horse riding is not part of the scope of the LFDP.

Council's existing Equestrian Strategy provides strategic direction for this activity.

No changes to the final LFDP report required.

2 Resident, Cranbourne. Would like the development of the Hunt Club oval at the corner of Broad Oak Drive and Bradford Drive, Cranbourne to be considered a high priority.

This project is already identified as a short term priority in the LFDP.


3 Narre Warren Cricket Club (Sweeney Reserve)

Consider opportunities to develop a Cricket only turf ground and another ground at Sweeney Reserve (i.e. take it to a 5 oval facility).

Development of additional ovals at Sweeney Reserve will help address overall short-fall across the City.

Improve maintenance services and outcomes.

Upgrade and expand pavilion facilities, including creating an upstairs social/viewing area.

Would like a playground installed between oval 1 and 2 not elsewhere in the reserve.

There is one cricket-only venue provided in the City (i.e. Regional facility at Casey Fields). Sweeney Reserve Master Plan does not identify sufficient space for any extra ovals, therefore additional ovals at this District location are not proposed.

Development of new ovals in the key growth areas is a priority in order to address long-term needs (as opposed to further expansion of Sweeney Reserve which the Master Plan does not support).

Additional maintenance works have been carried out to address non-routine maintenance requirements. The Parks & Reserves Department has confirmed the area is mowed every 3 weeks in accordance with scheduling.

The LFDP is a strategic document that sets the standards of future facilities to be built. In relation to existing facilities an audit will be done to compare existing facilities with the adopted standards. Any shortfalls will need to be

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: considered as part of an asset renewal program. Notably, the club’s pavilion been nominated as an addition to the 2017/2018 Capital Works Program however this is subject to Council approval and adoption of the revised budget. Moreover, Council does not provide pavilion facilities with a 2nd level according to LFDP standards.

Future playground provision will be in accordance with the Master Plan for Sweeney Reserve.


4 Berwick Tennis Club (Arch Brown Reserve)

Concerned that the report does not specifically identify opportunities to improve facilities at Berwick Tennis Club

Identifies the need for additional courts.

The LFDP is a strategic document that sets the standards of future facilities to be built. In relation to existing facilities an audit will be done to compare existing facilities with the adopted standards. Any shortfalls will need to be considered as part of an asset renewal program. The Berwick Tennis Club will receive pavilion renewal works according to Council’s adopted 5 year capital works plan, subject to final budget approval for the 2015/2016 financial year.

Existing courts used by the Berwick Tennis Club meet the district court provision standards (number of courts) with a minor capital works grant provided to improve the surface quality. The club has been offered access to additional courts to help cater for possible future demand (e.g. Hugh Hudson Reserve once constructed).


5 Endeavour Hills RUFC Upgrade existing playing field standard (i.e. drainage).

Provide sport lighting to the fields north of the pavilion.

Referred requests to Council's maintenance and minor capital works programs.

A sports field lighting program already exists (subject to budget approval each financial year) where the Endeavour Hills RUFC has been identified as the 6th priority and works are scheduled to commence in 2016/2017.

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: No changes to the final LFDP report required.

6 Gymnastic Vic Requested an upgrade of Berwick Leisure Centre to enhance gymnastics provision.

The Gymnastics Victoria Facilities Master Plan (2011/12) is currently being updated. However, the existing facilities Master Plan recognises the need for additional facility development in the south-east metropolitan area, in particular the City of Casey, including development of a regional standard facility.

Agree in principle with all the proposed facility recommendations in the draft LFDP, however suggest that facility sizes (floor space and height) and priorities should be increased.

Would like to see facility development priorities increased.

Support the development of gymnastics facilities co-located with other relevant community facilities, including indoor stadia.

The LFDP is a strategic document that sets the standards of future facilities to be built. In relation to existing facilities an audit will be done to compare existing facilities with the adopted standards. Any shortfalls will need to be considered as part of an asset renewal program.

The proposed District standard facility at Casey Town Centre has been altered to Regional standard (i.e. 1500m2 to cater for both male and female competitions).

The LFDP facility provision standards have been reviewed and as a result, an increase the total floor area has been made and roof heights have been specified for the hierarchy of facilities. Individual facility components to be further informed by Gymnastics Victoria facilities guide once established.

The LFDP sets out to address the total future facility shortfall (for the identified sports) over a short (1-5 year), medium (6-10 year) and long term (10 + year) period with long term gymnastic facility development dependent on the acquisition of land and the growth area emerging.

Changes made to the sport facility hierarchy standards in the final LFDP report

7 Casey Basketball Association

Questions the Basketball usage capacity figures quoted in the report.

Stated a preference for multi-court developments instead of 1 or 2 court venues.

Would like the report to provide more detail on the facility standards for Basketball at each level in the hierarchy.

Facility usage capacity figures have been clarified and Basketball modified to avoid confusion.

The LFDP supports preference for multi-court development sites (minimum local level development is 2-3 courts). Single court facilities are not recommended.

Standards for Indoor Stadia are already included in the LFDP.

Changes/clarification made to facility usage capacity figures in the final LFDP report

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: 8 Casey Softball

Association Prefer to further develop facilities at Sweeney

Reserve (i.e. additional diamonds) as opposed to creating a separate new 6-diamond venue in the future.

Welcome the proposed upgrade of facilities at Sweeney Reserve, however do not support potential loss of two diamonds to baseball. The Associations currently has in excess of 340 members, all 8 diamonds are required - particularly to cater for sub-regional and regional events.

There is no capacity at Sweeney Reserve to accommodate all diamonds required for the future (i.e. 12 diamonds at one site), therefore 6 new diamonds outside the UGB will provide a sustainable size to accommodate a new Association or Club/s and service a wider geographic catchment and population.

Club membership in baseball is believed to be comparable to Softball, hence further engagement between both groups is required prior to implementing any major changes in baseball and softball provision at Sweeney Reserve.

Retain existing directions/recommendations in the LFDP, subject to further engagement of key stakeholders.

9 Cricket Australia Supports proposed directions and forward planning for future oval provision. Would like to see greater consideration of demand for indoor cricket facilities.

Cranbourne Indoor Sport Centre, with 2 courts, is the only public indoor centre that caters of indoor cricket.

Indoor cricket facilities have traditionally been provided by the private sector as commercial enterprises. This is expected to continue in the future, without Council playing a direct role in facility provision.

Demand for Indoor Cricket has not been considered as part of this project.

No change to the final LFDP report required.

10 Netball Victoria Provides detailed comments on facility ratios and suggest demand for indoor courts will be higher than 1:10,000 particularly if shared use.

NV is in the process of finalising their own facility development standards guide for Clubs and LGA's.

The provision of seating is identified for sport facility hierarchy standards

Comments in relation to lighting standards, player shelters, and change rooms (mixed gender umpire change rooms are not supported).

Request minor changes to some words to meet netball terminology.

Outdoor facility provision ratio noted and demand for indoor courts is adequately addressed in the LFDP through proposed dedicated facilities, including combination of indoor and outdoor courts, as well as shared use of other courts.

Council's facility and pavilion standards will need to be reviewed when the NV Amenities Guide in completed over the next 12 months. Careful consideration needs to be given to design standards and operational procedures to maximise the safety of all users, including simultaneous use by males and females.

The provision for show court seating will be considered as

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: part of indoor stadia feasibility and design. Fixed seating will be provided at outdoor courts.

Lighting standards and adequate player shelter provision is provided in the LFDP facility standards.

According to the LFDP, one unisex umpire change room will be provided at facilities as the size allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

The provision for seating included in the sport facility hierarchy standards and minor netball terminology changes made to LFDP report. No further changes required.

11 Berwick City Soccer Club (Jack Thomas Reserve)

Would like the LFDP to support establishment of larger soccer clubs, including access to new facilities as opposed to new clubs being formed. Promoting the benefits of economies of scale.

Suggests priority should be given to upgrading existing facilities ahead of new facility developments. Therefore Council should covert Jack Thomas from FFV 'C' to 'B' class, and develop as a regional facility in the north.

67 new facilities are excessive and unnecessary if existing facilities were renewed to meet future demands.

Outlined concerns regarding the quality and condition of playing surfaces at Jack Thomas reserve.

Pavilion designs need to increasingly consider needs of special groups (e. g. prayer rooms, baby change facilities and separate breastfeeding rooms).

There are benefits from larger clubs, including economies of scale and volunteer resourcing. However the LFDP (and FFV) support distribution of facilities and clubs to service local catchments.

The LFDP is a strategic document that sets the standards of future facilities to be built. Development of new facilities will be integral to meeting the needs of residents within growth areas. In relation to existing facilities (Jack Thomas Reserve) an audit will be done to compare existing facilities with the adopted standards. Any shortfalls will need to be considered as part of an asset renewal program. A regional facility is already proposed, for development in the short term, at Casey Fields.

67 new facilities are required to meet the needs of Casey’s ultimate population (ratio 1:4,500 residents). Development of new fields in the key growth areas is a priority in order to address long-term needs.

Some drainage works are scheduled for 2017/2018 and 2019/2020. Further requests for maintenance and drainage need to be directed to Sport and Leisure.

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: Encourage partnerships with basketball clubs to

facilitate indoor soccer. The facility provision standards do not support inclusion of

prayer rooms or separate breastfeeding areas within sport pavilions. Items such as this require broader policy consideration for all public buildings. The installation of baby change tables will be considered as part of all new facility design.

Encouragement for partnerships noted.

No changes to the final LFDP required.

12 Waverley Tennis Agrees with 3 additional courts at Robinsons Road

Tennis participation patterns are changing, however overall demand remains strong.

Suggest a change to the facility provision model, i.e. from proposed 5 courts and 2 hot shots to 6 courts and 2 hot shots.

Support for Robinsons Road and changing participation trends noted.

Changing the provision model is not supported. However, modifications to line marking have been made to accommodate 5 competition courts and another full size court with blended lines to accommodate hot shots.

Minor changes made to line marking to accommodate hot shots in the final LFDP required.

13 Basketball Victoria Contains a number of questions asked about the development process of the LFDP.

Officers have responded to the questions regarding the development of the LFDP.

No changes to the LFDP report required.

14 Narre North Foxes Football Club

Outlined a number of suggestions for improvement of facilities to service the club at Narre North Recreation Reserve, including:

o Playground. o Electronic score boards. o Additional car park for major events.

Requests for improvement to Narre North Recreation Reserve are noted, however these are to be managed elsewhere by Council (e.g. minor capital works funding).

Council will consider installing a playspace once the regional trail link is constructed between Frog Hollow Reserve and Lysterfield Lake.

Future facility development will be in line with the hierarchy standards for each reserve (e.g. car parking). In relation to existing facilities an audit will be done to compare these with the adopted standards. Any shortfalls will need to be considered as part of an asset renewal program.

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: No changes to the LFDP report required.

15 West Gippsland Cricket Association

Recommended that the facility standards be reviewed to increase the size of junior ovals to be in-line with Association requirements.

The Association is actively encouraging participation by women, girls and all abilities and therefore would like to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided (eg change space for female umpires).

Sport facility hierarchy standards have been increased for junior cricket to a radius of 55m to cater for all levels of junior cricket.

All new buildings will be constructed to the relevant building standards, thus disability access will be provided. Furthermore, the size of umpire change space in the LFDP allows for changing space, toilet and a cubicle shower/change area to allow mixed gender use.

Changes to local level dual use oval have been increased to cater for all junior matches (radius of 55m) and senior AFL (min 110x135m). No other changes to the LFDP report required.

16 Hockey Victoria Suggest that participation demand is increasing within the City.

Would like the planned resurfacing of the Berwick Secondary College synthetic surface to be brought forward into 5 year capital works.

Council acknowledges local data which highlights growth in local participation.

Resurfacing has been moved to a 'short' term priority. The condition of the existing surface will need to be monitored.

A change to the facility development recommendations has been made in the LFDP is required.

17 Performance Academy of Dancing

Private operator requesting access to public facilities to conduct dance classes.

Suggested there is a good alignment between dance and gymnastics or martial arts facilities.

Council will support development of multi-use program spaces in new Community Activity Centres.

Dancing is not part of the scope of the LFDP.

No changes to the LFDP report required.

18 AFL Victoria AFL Vic has begun to use an alternative model for assessing the requirement for new ovals in growth areas based on anticipated participation demand. This results in a potential requirement for an additional 50 grounds by 2030. NB: this assumes there is no current deficit in meeting existing demand.

Synthetics model - AFL Vic would prefer 1

Use of ratios (1:4,000) in the revised LFDP results in a requirement for an additional 66 new ovals (in addition to the existing 46 ovals) to service the ultimate forecast population. AFV Vic suggests an additional 50 ovals may be required by 2030, based on a high participation growth scenario. The LFDP will be revised to a ratio of 1:4,250 resulting in a recommend 59 new ovals, incorporating 47 turf and 4 synthetic surfaces (i.e. the previous suggestion of

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: synthetic oval to be supported by 2 turf ovals, rather than a single site with 3 synthetic.

Playing area – senior matches are to be played on grounds ranging from 135m – 185m in length and 110m – 155m in width, with a preference of 165x135m. Additionally, the 5m boundary run-off can be incorporated within the dimensions (rather than an addition).

Maintenance - conversion of turf ovals to warm season grasses has impacted on their carrying capacity (reduced), suggest Council over sow with cool season grasses and fertilising to increase capacity.

Car parking - suggest this should increase from a minimum of 50 cars (off street) to 75 for 2 oval venues.

Pavilion standards - review to reflect latest AFL Vic Preferred Facility Guidelines.

3 synthetic ovals outside the UGB has been deleted).

Comments in relation to the model of synthetic oval provision are noted, however Council has expressed a preference, particularly from an operational management perspective, to consolidate synthetic surfaces into a single managed site.

The facility hierarchy standards have been altered to incorporate dual use of sites (Cricket and AFL), therefore a minimum size has been identified to cater for senior AFL on local and district playing surfaces (considering the needs of junior and senior cricket). A preferred playing area size has been consistently identified across district, municipal and regional facilities.

Progressive over sowing with cool season grasses and fertilisation will be considered by Council outside the scope of this project. No changes to the LFDP are required.

Car parking has been increased from 50 to 75 at district venues to cater for 2 oval venues.

Review facility standards have been reviewed with the following outcomes:

o AFL Vic’s preferred hierarchy standards have no comparable option for Council’s proposed Local level facility. Therefore no increase in the size of local level pavilions.

o AFL Vic’s preferred local hierarchy is comparable to Council’s District level facility provision. The preferred standards have been acknowledged and no change is required to the LFDP.

o AFL Vic’s preferred standards for a Regional level facility have been acknowledged and no change is required to the LFDP.

Changes have been made to ratios; facility hierarchy

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: standards (size of playing area) have been increased to reflect the need of dual use sites (Cricket and AFL); and car parking provision at district level facilities has been increased in the LFDP.

19 Victorian Rugby League Suggested increasing the priority for new facility provision outside the UGB from long-term to medium.

Suggested there is growing participation demand in the Victoria and the City of Casey. The Casey Warriors are beyond capacity in certain age groups.

Suggested formation of another club and facility is required as a high priority.

The development of additional facilities outside the UGB will remain a long-term priority as this reflects the availability of land for development.

Council will continue to support the Casey Warriors, including possible access to use of soccer facilities at Casey Fields for RL, particularly training on the synthetic pitch.

No change to the final LFDP is proposed.

20 Baseball Victoria Compliments Council on the LFDP. No changes to the LFDP report required.

21 Hallam Senior College Supports ongoing development of sport and leisure facilities and is keen to partner with Council for joint use and development of appropriate facilities.

Suggests opportunities to improve facilities at Hallam Senior College, including broad community use.

AFL: The College would strongly support an upgrade of Reid reserve from a category 3 field to a category 2 field.

Basketball: preference would be a three court facility at Hallam Senior College on Frawley road.

Consider upgrading school soccer pitch to synthetic (instead of Waratah Reserve).

Rugby League: Suggest upgrading/extending the school RU pitch for community use.

Possible use of school facilities will be considered complementary to overall sport facility needs and pursued as opportunities arise.

Council will work closely with the school to support possible external funding submissions to Government to support upgrades to sport facilities and joint-use opportunities.

Reid Reserve is currently scheduled for a surface upgrade to address facility use requirements for Hallam Senior College.

No additional basketball facility is required based on future provision.

Waratah Reserve will be upgraded to a synthetic pitch as specified in the LFDP. Council’s preference is for sporting facility provision to be on Council owned land to ensure maximum facility use.

Council agrees to the extension/upgrade of the school’s Rugby Union pitch for community use in the medium term.

Ref No. Club / organisation Summary of key comments Response and/or changes to final LFDP report: Swimming: the School supports Casey Tiger Sharks

Swimming Club regarding the redevelopment of the Doveton Pool in the Park.

Request for a minor upgrade of cricket practice nets at Hallam Recreation Reserve.

Swimming is not part of the scope of the LFDP

No requests for cricket net upgrades have been made by user groups of the Reserve. Hallam Senior College is welcome to put in a joint application with the Hallam Cricket Club for a minor capital works grant.

22 VicSport

VicSport supports all areas of the LFDP 2014 and commends Council on the clear framework for the new and upgraded facilities; multi-sport facility use; proposed joint use arrangements with schools; and the continued emphasis on facility planning, sport development and sport policy.

On implementation of new facilities, VicSport places emphasis on management models that are conducive to affordable community sport access and multi-sport use.

Comments and support noted.


Date post:	03-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times